Outside Topic Playing football is not for the fainthearted - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Playing football is not for the fainthearted (/thread-18820.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Playing football is not for the fainthearted (/thread-18820.html)
Playing football is not for the fainthearted - BostonCard - 01-07-2020
So says an opinion for the sixth circuit court of appeals
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0007p-06.pdf
I will leave others to editorialize about the "kids these days".
BC
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - cardcrimson - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 05:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: So says an opinion for the sixth circuit court of appeals
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0007p-06.pdf
I will leave others to editorialize about the "kids these days".
BC
Taking their complaint to the US Court of Appeals?!? Guess they proved the coach right.
"Rogers Hornsby was my manager, and he called me a talking pile of pig shit, and that was when my parents drove all the way down from Michigan to see me play the game. And did I cry? No. No. And you know why? Because there’s no crying in baseball. There’s no crying in baseball. No crying!"
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - 2006alum - 01-07-2020
As a matter of the legal issue in this case, portions of the majority opinion are comically disingenuous, even if the ultimate holding under the law isn't necessarily wrong (though it's close):
"On a daily basis, Frye called Chisholm, Lininger, and their teammates various names, including “pussy, bitch, and pretty boy. . . . Frye criticized Chisholm and Lininger in a crude, foulmouthed way because they, in his view, were not “tough” enough. Toughness, while sometimes celebrated in men, is certainly not discouraged in women, especially in a professional or team setting. Indeed, in sports, law enforcement, business, law, politics, the armed services, and myriad other activities and professions, women are called upon to be as tough as men."
And I'm sure when women don't show sufficient toughness, they are regularly called "pussy," "bitch," and "pretty boy!"
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - BostonCard - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 06:34 PM)2006alum Wrote: And I'm sure when women don't show sufficient toughness, they are regularly called ..."bitch,"
That in particular is ironic, since that epithet is used to attack the exact opposite characteristic in women (i.e. when they are perceived as "too tough"). And I'll stop before I wade too far into the no-go zone.
Now, insults being what they are these days, many of them do, as it turns out, reflect gendered stereotypes. Shakespeare could come up with some good ones!
https://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeare-insults/
“You starvelling, you eel-skin, you dried neat’s-tongue, you bull’s-pizzle, you stock-fish–O for breath to utter what is like thee!-you tailor’s-yard, you sheath, you bow-case, you vile standing tuck!”
BC
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - cardcrimson - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 06:34 PM)2006alum Wrote: As a matter of the legal issue in this case, portions of the majority opinion are comically disingenuous, even if the ultimate holding under the law isn't necessarily wrong (though it's close):
Thanks for setting the record straight, counselor. Boy, those judges in the original court and on the Court of Appeals sure must be morons. . . .
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - 2006alum - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 07:14 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(01-07-2020, 06:34 PM)2006alum Wrote: As a matter of the legal issue in this case, portions of the majority opinion are comically disingenuous, even if the ultimate holding under the law isn't necessarily wrong (though it's close):
Thanks for setting the record straight, counselor. Boy, those judges in the original court and on the Court of Appeals sure must be morons. . . .
Morons, no. Slanted views of whether, at the margins, state tort liability or federal anti-discrimination protections should be expanded or contracted, absolutely. And since you asked, panel makeup matters, and this one was made up of two GW Bush appointees and a Trump appointee, with the Trump appointee writing the opinion quoted above. One of the GWB appointees dissented, and it's notable that, in her view (the only woman on the panel), a reasonable jury could have found for the plaintiffs on the IIED claim. I imagine the outcome might - and the content of the opinion certainly - would have looked different with two Clinton appointees and an Obama appointee.
My view? It's a close one, but it's a lot closer than the writing judge would suggest.
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - martyup - 01-07-2020
Moof milker! Nerf herder! Scrot! Leppy!
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - BostonCard - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 07:14 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(01-07-2020, 06:34 PM)2006alum Wrote: As a matter of the legal issue in this case, portions of the majority opinion are comically disingenuous, even if the ultimate holding under the law isn't necessarily wrong (though it's close):
Thanks for setting the record straight, counselor. Boy, those judges in the original court and on the Court of Appeals sure must be morons. . . .
That's not what 2006alum said; he called portions of the opinion "comically disingenuous", not stupid. And whatever you think of the opinion as a whole, it is hard not to find the passage cited by 2006alum to be a stretch.
BC
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - cardcrimson - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 07:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(01-07-2020, 07:14 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(01-07-2020, 06:34 PM)2006alum Wrote: As a matter of the legal issue in this case, portions of the majority opinion are comically disingenuous, even if the ultimate holding under the law isn't necessarily wrong (though it's close):
Thanks for setting the record straight, counselor. Boy, those judges in the original court and on the Court of Appeals sure must be morons. . . .
That's not what 2006alum said; he called portions of the opinion "comically disingenuous", not stupid. And whatever you think of the opinion as a whole, it is hard not to find the passage cited by 2006alum to be a stretch.
BC
I thought the Cardboard was a non political space. Why openly ridicule the opinion, then mention the judges were Bush and Trump appointees?
Frankly, I find the entire suit to be a stretch. A violation of Title IX? Seriously? A complete waste of taxpayer dollars and I hope the defendant was awarded legal fees for the frivolous action.
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - BostonCard - 01-07-2020
Fair point, and I was worried that we would veer in that direction when I posted it.
On the other hand, is it still "political" when you ridicule a passage in the opinion whose conclusion you ultimately agree with as a matter of law? I think any good lawyer should be able to identify strained lines of reasoning, regardless of who appointed the judges who made them.
BC
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - 2006alum - 01-07-2020
I'll be brief: there is no partisan monopoly on flimsy, bad faith arguments - both sides engage in plenty. My initial take was that it was pretty weak reasoning and also hasty to leap to a conclusion totally unnecessary to the resolution of the case, and to so do in an almost laughably silly way. As the concurrence notes, calling someone "pussy" alone is not actionable under Title IX without a lot more to back up why that's discrimination because of sex, so much of the majority opinion, including the parts I quoted, weren't necessary. At all.
And in this case, the reason I mentioned the panel is because it was pretty clear that the writing judge had a preordained view about this area of the law generally, and at least one accomplice in joining it in full, and so it was no surprise to see the appointment history of the panel composition. As I say, in another case, with another opinion, and a different outcome, there'd be smoking guns pointing the other direction.
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - cardcrimson - 01-07-2020
(01-07-2020, 09:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Fair point, and I was worried that we would veer in that direction when I posted it.
On the other hand, is it still "political" when you ridicule a passage in the opinion whose conclusion you ultimately agree with as a matter of law? I think any good lawyer should be able to identify strained lines of reasoning, regardless of who appointed the judges who made them.
BC
Lawyers and strained lines of reasoning?!? That's their job, sadly. Common sense rarely prevails anymore. Pushing a lawsuit to the Federal Court of Appeals because a coach treated you like crap, perhaps with the intent of making you a better player? Wow. If there ever was a case for tort reform. . . .
RE: Playing football is not for the fainthearted - Hulk01 - 01-08-2020
I clerked for a Nixon appointee.
If you read our opinions (yes, I deserve credit for the writing but not the decisions), you'd think JFK liberals.
Decided for the broadest possible reading of the right to trial by jury, got reversed on appeal in the Supreme Court.
Gave the broadest possible reading to the First Amendment, a case finding that a high school teacher's approach to teaching
was protected speech.
(Of course, this limited evidence might suggest my judge was a conservative libertarian, but I'd argue not.)
Better times back then. In the Ninth Circuit, at least, merely good lawyers didn't get federal appointments,
although there is no arguing the political aspects of it, even then.
It was critical to know your Senators and some of the key people close to them.