Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Alsacs, post: 1455595, member: 652"] Good thing the author of that article isn't suspended from practing the law or else people would believe him. Oh wait Lester was disbarred? You show how wrong you are citing "Attorney" Lester Munson is at it again! [URL='http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13479971/fooled-judge-deflategate-case-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady#']http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/st...[/URL] "The rule that judges should not tamper with an arbitrator's decision is so well recognized and obvious that a U.S. Supreme Court opinion involving Steve Garvey was issued in 2001 as a per curiam decision. That means the ruling was not only unanimous, it should have been clear to all concerned that there was no reason for the case to be considered at the high court level." Well, it was unanimous... except for Justice Stevens' dissent, of course. [URL='https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/532/504/case.html']https://supreme.justia.com/cas...[/URL] Lester, as usual, lacks basic comprehension skills here. Per curiam decisions are ultimately just unsigned decisions that represent the Court as a unified body. There's a separate phrase for opinions where the Court wants to make it clear to all concerned that there is no reason for the case to be considered at the high court level: it's called "denial of the petition for certiorari." Per curiam decisions are (in theory) supposed to be used when there's no need for an extensive discussion of the facts or law underlying the case; i.e. where there's a clear disposition in the view of the Court. If, for some ungodly reason, the 9th Circuit found that California could negotiate its own treaties with foreign countries, the overturning of that decision by the Supreme Court would very likely be a per curiam opinion. (Were I on the court, the entirety of the opinion would be "NO! BAD STATE! NO!". But I digress.) And in Garvey, the facts weren't in dispute, and the question of law was (to be frank) pretty easy. The 9th Circuit super overstepped its authority (again, WAY WAY WAY more than the NFLPA is asking for in this case), and the SupCt put them in their place. Once again, Lester's analysis isn't worth the paper it's not written on. One more thing -- Lester mis-cites the rule, too. The rule expressed (firmly) in Garvey is that a court should not tamper with the arbitrator's FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS, not that the court should not tamper with the award. There's a difference. And you'd think that, you know, a legal analyst's job would be to explain to people that subtlety that's not readily apparent to non-lawyers. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?