That’s a nice theory. In practice the courts can do whatever they want to. Subject only to a higher court overturning it. The Supreme Court has no check or balance. It is the ultimate ruling authority in this country.
Agree to disagree. In my experience, Federal Judges provide a legal basis for their decisions, particularly in matters like this that don't really have a political angle.
If that were the case, few court rulings would be overturned & most Supreme Court rulings would be 9-0 or 8-1. Tue fact they’ve already ruled against any restrictions on complete athlete freedom & free agency gives a clue how they’d rule if/when this bill is challenged.
No, judges can disagree on interpretations and applications of the law. That's why we have litigation in the first place, people see things from different points of view. Just because a district judge gets reversed...which happens less than 10% of the time...does not mean the district or appellate court were "doing whatever they want." They just didn't agree.
I am admittedly not very educated on this, but on the surface I am happy about this fact. I’m sure someone will tell me why I am wrong
My issue with it would have been that we also pay for our athletic scholarships. So if money was being routed to academics from athletics for that, why would we route fees from academics to athletics. That made absolutely no sense to me.
We start between $5-10 mllion behind the 8 ball than our other conference members is what I found.
