DC Tom Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Nope. It's what legal professionals are paid to do. It's not a 'waste', it's how our judicial system functions. There is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit in the US, or we wouldn't have such an extensive tort structure. Your opinion of Kaepernick's supposed victimhood is irrelevant as to whether or not this case serves a function in society. It's a waste of the league's time, and the owners, and the court system's...
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Thanks for posting. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded not to sign him in retaliation for his outspoken views on perceived racial injustice. So my original point--that his grievance alleges that he's not in the league because of his expression of his political view--still stands. I will acknowledge that it will be difficult for him to prove collusion, since I'm sure the owners weren't stupid enough to send around a group email about not signing Kaepernick. We'll see. True that is what is grievance articulates but it not relevant, owners can decide they dont want him because of his hairdo, doesn't matter as long as they didnt collude. And prompted by you I started to read his griwvance and got opnly this far, "To date, and specifically from the 2016 season through the present, there has been no NFL rule prohibiting players from kneeling during the national anthem. Mr. Kaepernick has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to engage in a silent and peaceful protest." The first sentence is wildly misleading, rules were there and never enforced/tested and the lawyers carefully limited it to "kneeling", no in the rules "kneeling" was never listed specifically. Standing up was though. Second sentence, yes Colin has First Amendment rights, they were never infringed. What he doesn't have is a right to a job and act in any manner he wants to while at that job. How is it players get fined for pretending to be a dog urinating? Where is their 1st amendment rights there? If you owned a starbucks and on of your employees decided to lecture every customer about how great Donald Trump is before they too an order, do you think Starbucks has the right to terminate the employee, of course they do.
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 It's a waste of the league's time, and the owners, and the court system's... The league and the owners have lawyers who bill for exactly this reason, and the courts exist to hear cases (although I'd guess this one is unlikely to ever make it before a judge). They're probably going to settle, and if not they'll make law that will strengthen or reaffirm the judicial code.
boyst Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 The league and the owners have lawyers who bill for exactly this reason, and the courts exist to hear cases (although I'd guess this one is unlikely to ever make it before a judge). They're probably going to settle, and if not they'll make law that will strengthen or reaffirm the judicial code. this is the exact reason the NFL must have so many lawyers. It's a bull **** lawsuit filed by a bull **** person. This guy continues to be a disgrace to this country the more he does.
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 I'm not sure about that. In some states, including California, it is illegal, with some exceptions, to fire or refuse to hire someone because of their political beliefs or affiliations. But that would be a difficult case to prove, of course. Well you may have me there, leave it to California, lets just regulate everything right down to what they believe/ Next you will have quotas based on religion, political affiliation. But what Colin did falls under workplace behavior, had he protested on his own time I dont think anyone would care one iota. But he decided to protest on the field, like it or not the owners and the NFL owns that stage, not Colin.
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 this is the exact reason the NFL must have so many lawyers. It's a bull **** lawsuit filed by a bull **** person. This guy continues to be a disgrace to this country the more he does. If you read back, I explain why his actions are in fact strengthening the laws of this country, and as such Kaepernick and his lawsuit are to the betterment of me, you, and the US in general. Don't fret over the fact that the NFL pays a lot of lawyers. Most corporations do as well. It's the cost of doing business in a litigious society.
boyst Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 If you read back, I explain why his actions are in fact strengthening the laws of this country, and as such Kaepernick and his lawsuit are to the betterment of me, you, and the US in general. Don't fret over the fact that the NFL pays a lot of lawyers. Most corporations do as well. It's the cost of doing business in a litigious society. there is nothing Kaepernick is doing to better my life unless he'd let kick him right in the nuts. He's a pencil necked dweeb with an idiot girlfriend. His lawsuit will not better life. It will make a mockery of what racism has not become in this country. The outliers of racism existing in small pockets will always be and they go both ways. His taking a knee is literally just stalling the efforts of the world going on and the clock counting down. Racism wasnt an issue when I was growing up in my neighborhood and community. It isn't now in an entirely different community, either.
dwight in philly Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 If you read back, I explain why his actions are in fact strengthening the laws of this country, and as such Kaepernick and his lawsuit are to the betterment of me, you, and the US in general. Don't fret over the fact that the NFL pays a lot of lawyers. Most corporations do as well. It's the cost of doing business in a litigious society.
mannc Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 True that is what is grievance articulates but it not relevant, owners can decide they dont want him because of his hairdo, doesn't matter as long as they didnt collude. And prompted by you I started to read his griwvance and got opnly this far, "To date, and specifically from the 2016 season through the present, there has been no NFL rule prohibiting players from kneeling during the national anthem. Mr. Kaepernick has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to engage in a silent and peaceful protest." The first sentence is wildly misleading, rules were there and never enforced/tested and the lawyers carefully limited it to "kneeling", no in the rules "kneeling" was never listed specifically. Standing up was though. Second sentence, yes Colin has First Amendment rights, they were never infringed. What he doesn't have is a right to a job and act in any manner he wants to while at that job. How is it players get fined for pretending to be a dog urinating? Where is their 1st amendment rights there? If you owned a starbucks and on of your employees decided to lecture every customer about how great Donald Trump is before they too an order, do you think Starbucks has the right to terminate the employee, of course they do. You should keep reading. There is some interesting stuff in the grievance. For example, he alleges that Trump has "been an organizing force in the collusion among team owners in their conduct towards Kaepernick" and that "NFL GMs and team leaders have referred to directives from NFL owners to not let Kaepernick so much as practice with a team." Maybe it won't be so hard to prove collusion after all...
Foxx Posted October 16, 2017 Author Posted October 16, 2017 If you read back, I explain why his actions are in fact strengthening the laws of this country, and as such Kaepernick and his lawsuit are to the betterment of me, you, and the US in general. Don't fret over the fact that the NFL pays a lot of lawyers. Most corporations do as well. It's the cost of doing business in a litigious society. it can be debated whether or not ambulance chasers are actually contributing to the betterment of society.
dwight in philly Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 You should keep reading. There is some interesting stuff in the grievance. For example, he alleges that Trump has "been an organizing force in the collusion among team owners in their conduct towards Kaepernick" and that "NFL GMs and team leaders have referred to directives from NFL owners to not let Kaepernick so much as practice with a team." Maybe it won't be so hard to prove collusion after all...
Rob's House Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Your original point--that Foles put up big numbers in Chip Kelly's system, therefore we can't trust any numbers put up by a QB in Chip Kelly's system--is so devoid of logic on its face that it's barely worth responding to. I'm not arguing that Kaepernick is an elite QB; only that he is better than almost all the backups in the league and a fair number of the starters, especially when you look at the list of starting QBs going into week 7. As evidence to support that argument, I pointed to statistics from his most recent season in the NFL, playing for a team that was almost totally devoid of offensive talent. Furthermore, Kaepernick has been in the league for quite a few years and has played at a fairly high level in the past, so it's not like his 2016 season was a total outlier. As to your last sentence, I think you are acknowledging that the reason Kaepernick is not in the league is because of his outspoken stance regarding perceived racial injustice. Which is precisely the basis for his grievance. To characterize the totality of the behavior people find offensive as a stance against racial injustice is beyond disingenuous. That's like saying Ray Rice is out for standing up to his wife. And that is actually not the basis of his grievance, nor is it even close to the basis of his grievance. His position is that the NFL owners are colluding against him. Whether it's over his "stance", style of play, general attitude, or haircut is immaterial. The only question is whether there was collusion.
mannc Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 To characterize the totality of the behavior people find offensive as a stance against racial injustice is beyond disingenuous. That's like saying Ray Rice is out for standing up to his wife.Hence, my use of the word "perceived".
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) You should keep reading. There is some interesting stuff in the grievance. For example, he alleges that Trump has "been an organizing force in the collusion among team owners in their conduct towards Kaepernick" and that "NFL GMs and team leaders have referred to directives from NFL owners to not let Kaepernick so much as practice with a team." Maybe it won't be so hard to prove collusion after all... I read the rest, very dramatic, brings up everything from the percent of AAs in the league to Donald Trump. I noted the same thing you just did, remember these are lawyers wordsmithing to make it sound as horrific as possible, there are mostly likely "directives" one anyone who can or can not be, basically guidelines. This sounds like there was an order from the NFL not let C K practice at all under any conditions. No doubt if and when the truth comes out it will be nothing at all like it is inferred. But IF the NFL is dumb enough to have issued said "directive" signaling Colin, they would by sunk. Go and get sued sometimes, the crap that is alleged in lawsuits is often laughable, idea is often to throw as much crap (including bold faced lies) on the wall and see what sticks. Edited October 16, 2017 by RoyBatty is alive
Rob's House Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Hence, my use of the word "perceived". This isn't going well for you.
mannc Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 And that is actually not the basis of his grievance, nor is it even close to the basis of his grievance. His position is that the NFL owners are colluding against him. Whether it's over his "stance", style of play, general attitude, or haircut is immaterial. The only question is whether there was collusion.Wrong. This topic is covered above. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded against him "in retaliation for [his] leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice ...". He also alleges that the owners "have retaliated against [him] in response to coercion and calculated coordination from the Executive Branch of the United States government." I suspect he may try to show that this alleged state action directly brings the First Amendment into play. Interesting...
dwight in philly Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Wrong. This topic is covered above. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded against him "in retaliation for [his] leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice ...". He also alleges that the owners "have retaliated against [him] in response to coercion and calculated coordination from the Executive Branch of the United States government." I suspect he may try to show that this alleged state action directly brings the First Amendment into play. Interesting... it was individual business decisions made by private citizens owning said business. not rocket science. this is frivolous. ..............................................friv·o·lous ˈfrivələs/ adjective not having any serious purpose or value. Edited October 16, 2017 by dwight in philly
RoyBatty is alive Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Wrong. This topic is covered above. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded against him "in retaliation for [his] leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice ...". He also alleges that the owners "have retaliated against [him] in response to coercion and calculated coordination from the Executive Branch of the United States government." I suspect he may try to show that this alleged state action directly brings the First Amendment into play. Interesting... As I stated prior, there is absolutely no way CK had his first amendment rights infringed, zip zero zilch. Did anyone stop him from kneeling? Answer is a simple no. And has has been beat to death already why he isnt on a team is not relevant, the only relevance is if teams colluded. CK has first amendment rights do and and say what he wants...there is no right to get a job in the NFL..
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 it can be debated whether or not ambulance chasers are actually contributing to the betterment of society. This being slightly off topic, there's an obvious question as to legitimizing the methods with which certain lawsuits are established, no doubt. Their existence, however, remains a net benefit. In my personal opinion.
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 As I stated prior, there is absolutely no way CK had his first amendment rights infringed, zip zero zilch. Did anyone stop him from kneeling? Answer is a simple no. And has has been beat to death already why he isnt on a team is not relevant, the only relevance is if teams colluded. CK has first amendment rights do and and say what he wants...there is no right to get a job in the NFL.. There is nothing remotely interesting in his grievance , if you are not a bleeding heart liberal. it was individual business decisions made by private citizens owning said business. not rocket science. this is frivolous. ..............................................friv·o·lous[/size] ˈfrivələs/ adjective Libs love frivolous lawsuits.... not having any serious purpose or value.
Recommended Posts