Skip to content

Eighth Circuit needs to rule on the motion for a stay

MootFestival-01

Two weeks after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided to delay the lifting of the lockout temporarily, in order to consider whether to delay it until the appeal of the ruling lifting the lockout is resolved, the Eighth Circuit still hasn’t ruled on whether the lifting of the lockout will be delayed.

As a practical matter, the lifting of the lockout continues to be delayed, with only three weeks remaining until the Eighth Circuit hears arguments on the appeal itself.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that court clerk Michael Gans has said that no ruling will come Friday, and that no ruling should be expected before Monday.  On Monday, we’ll likely hear something similar from regarding the three-judge panel that has been operating more like a three-ring circus.

The failure of the Eighth Circuit to rule on the motion makes little sense, given that Judge Susan Nelson has found that the players are suffering irreparable harm during the lockout.  If the Eighth Circuit believes that the players aren’t presently suffering irreparable harm, and more specifically that they won’t suffer irreparable harm until the appeal is resolved, the Eighth Circuit should just say so.  Alternatively, if the Eighth Circuit believes that the NFL will suffer irreparable harm if the lockout is lifted temporarily, the Eighth Circuit should say so.

On April 29, two of the three judges who are considering the motion for a stay and who will handle the appeal of Judge Nelson’s 89-page ruling justified a temporary delay of the lifting of the lockout by explaining that “[t]he purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the motion for a stay pending appeal.”  Though we realize that federal judges have plenty of other things to do, two weeks seem to be more than enough time to determine whether the lockout will or won’t be lifted while the appeal proceeds — especially since the Eighth Circuit thereafter granted the NFL’s motion to expedite all other aspects of the appeal.

At this point, the ruling on the pending motion matters far less than the fact that the Eighth Circuit has opted to do nothing, which operates as a practical matter as a granting of the motion.  Wouldn’t it be more fair to the parties to articulate the reasoning for granting the motion in writing?

Perhaps the truth is that, given the legal standard that applies to motions of this nature, the Eighth Circuit simply can’t plausibly cut a path from Point A to Point B.  Perhaps the judges realize that the NFL wouldn’t truly be irreparably harmed by a temporary cessation of the lockout, and that absent such harm a stay would not be justified.

The players presumably are frustrated by the lack of a ruling, but their lawyers know not to ask for a ruling, given the rule of thumb in the legal community that he who asks for a ruling often gets a ruling that he didn’t want.  Besides, any effort by the players to rattle the robes of the three judges would instantly be met with catcalls and other criticisms on NFLLabor.com regarding the fact that the players have only themselves to blame for thrusting this labor dispute into the inherently unpredictable legal system.

And so we wait.  And wait.  And while we wait we can wonder whether we’ll likewise be waiting and waiting for these same three judges to issue a ruling on the far more important issue that has landed on their docket.

Permalink 71 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
71 Responses to “Eighth Circuit needs to rule on the motion for a stay”
  1. 7370355q says: May 13, 2011 3:59 PM

    They better make up for this slow ass ruling by giving us a quicker than expected decision on the June 3rd appeal ruling.

  2. villagoo says: May 13, 2011 4:00 PM

    Perhaps the judges realize that the NFL wouldn’t truly be irreparably harmed by a temporary cessation of the lockout, and that absent such harm a stay would not be justified.

    Your attempt to “be unbiased” is an utter joke at this point. If you want to be mad at someone be made at the nflpa for taking this to court. Everyone in the world knows nothing in the court system is close to efficient. We all want football, but at this point who’s fault is it really for dragging this out in court until mid/end june to gain leverage? The owners have attempted to negotiate and the players are fine letting it draw out until traing camp. But it’s obviously the owners or judges fault at this point.

  3. ckacv111 says: May 13, 2011 4:04 PM

    They’re waiting for the best bribe.

  4. p4ever says: May 13, 2011 4:05 PM

    Stand up judges! NOT

  5. jlinatl says: May 13, 2011 4:05 PM

    It is reasonable to think if the judges felt the stay conclusively needed to be lifted, they would have ruled to do so.

    The silence is deafening.

    Maybe the judges recognize that the best way to resolve this is back at a bargaining table. Hopefully, the non-ruling leads to negotiation… not a meeting… negotiation.

  6. thevolcanokid says: May 13, 2011 4:08 PM

    “The players presumably are frustrated by the lack of a ruling, but their lawyers know not to ask for a ruling, given the rule of thumb in the legal community that he who asks for a ruling often gets a ruling that he didn’t want.”
    ________________________________

    The fact that we fear the grumpiness of judges is ridiculous. They should be doing their jobs (fairly & correctly) without a care for who is annoying the hell out of them.

    Another broken system?

  7. txchief says: May 13, 2011 4:08 PM

    Seems to me the court has already made their decision about the stay. If they were going to rule on the playas’ motion to lift the lockout, the court already would have done so.

  8. firstroyal says: May 13, 2011 4:09 PM

    I would think the fastest way to get past this is for the stay to stand, and the 8th circut court to say the government is not in the union buisiness. With no litigation but “player appeal” left we could see both sides saying “might as well get this over with” and MAKE A DEAL

  9. dericivy says: May 13, 2011 4:11 PM

    I’d imagine that they very carefully have to consider the ramifications of any decisions they make in regards to the business world, I’m sure there are influencing factors for each judge’s opinion in regards to where they want to law to lie down.

    Stubborn old fools.

  10. paulitik74 says: May 13, 2011 4:11 PM

    Activist judges. What in Judge Nelson’s ruling do they not understand? The lockout is illegal.

    Someone paid them off.

  11. jw731 says: May 13, 2011 4:14 PM

    the fact of the matter is…..I don’t think anyone is going to die, because the court has yet to rule…..Jesus, it’s just a game

  12. orbearider66 says: May 13, 2011 4:14 PM

    Well, maybe the delay in issuing a ruling, regardless of what you think is fair, is a sign that the Court disagrees with the previous ruling and does not think the players are suffering irreperable harm.

    You know, I know you *think* you’re offering fair, middle of the road reporting on this issue but, geez, every whiny post like this (about how unfair this is to the players or comments about criticisms on NFLLabor.com) just reaffirms to me that you’re just a shill for the players.

  13. moochzilla says: May 13, 2011 4:16 PM

    The best justice money can buy!

    [in the voice of Nick Nolte at the end of “Blue Chips”]…

    THE BEST JUSTICE MONEY CAN BUY!!!!!!!!!!

  14. fatelvis77 says: May 13, 2011 4:17 PM

    Law clerks have been dispatched to figure out a legal or factual predicate to upset Judge Nelson’s ruling and, so far, have been unable to put together anything plausible that 2 out of 3 judges can agree on. Therefore the best the 2 republicans can do for the league is not say anything other than what they have already said, “We need more time to study the issue.” If this all gives the players a smidgeon of doubt they might start negotiating, but if I were advising the players I’d tell them they are still in the drivers seat. The owners have no leverage. They are not going out of business and replacement players would be a joke, same as last time.

  15. psuphinphan says: May 13, 2011 4:17 PM

    Maybe 2 of 3 judges are actually NFL employees. First the comments section, now the court! What’s next?!

  16. moochzilla says: May 13, 2011 4:18 PM

    “Maybe the judges recognize that the best way to resolve this is back at a bargaining table.”

    Uh, they have to make a ruling. That’s their JOB. That’s what you and I and every taxpayer pay them for. It isn’t their job to play with themselves in hope someone will do something else besides waste their valuable time.

    This is EXACTLY what an activist judge looks like.

  17. jimphin says: May 13, 2011 4:20 PM

    Concerning “irreparable harm” … did Judge Susan really make an intelligent argument that the players are suffering irreparable harm by the lockout? I’m really wondering what her definition of irreparable harm is.

    It seems to me, that the only intelligent argument concerning irreparable harm to players would be if they were injured while actually playing the game that they are payed to play. They are much safer during this lockout as long as they don’t get themselves in shot or stabbed.

    Wesly Welker & Reggie Bush laugh at this irreparable harm concept.

    It seems to me that this temporary stay does not have an expiration date. We only know that it won’t last forever. Eventually, we get both sides at the table signing some type of CBA agreement.

  18. geo1113 says: May 13, 2011 4:21 PM

    You know, guys, the NFL case is not the only case before these judges. From a quick perusal of the 8th circuit opinions, the judges on the Brady/NFL case have rendered quite a few opinions. They’ll get to it.

  19. zerored78 says: May 13, 2011 4:21 PM

    “Maybe the judges recognize that the best way to resolve this is back at a bargaining table. Hopefully, the non-ruling leads to negotiation… not a meeting… negotiation.”

    I doubt they think this. That would be foolish. Neither side is going to negotiate until they know where they stand. Right now, both sides have some tangible hope that the courts will rule in their favor giving them a better bargaining position.

  20. snnyjcbs says: May 13, 2011 4:21 PM

    By the Court allowing the Stay to be left in place they have in effect Ruled on the matter, you just are not happy with the results.

    By allowing this to go on as long as they have I would say if they do hand down a Ruling it will not be going the players way.

    With the Court Date such a short time away my guess is that they let things stand as they are until the Hearing. If the Court felt the players were being harmed they would have ruled on this long ago, the players lost.

  21. hail2tharedskins says: May 13, 2011 4:23 PM

    paulitik74,

    Judge Nelson does not make law. Just because she says its illegal does not make it so, and that is why the appeals courts exists, to review and correct errors of law made my trial court judges. If you think the appellate court judges have been paid off, then it is just as equally plausible that Judge Nelson was paid off. So, not a very sound argument, it is just much more likely that they have differing interpretations of the law, and in this case the appellate court judge’s opinion outweighs the district court judge’s opinion.

  22. randolph32 says: May 13, 2011 4:23 PM

    I once read a book titled ‘Military justice is to justice as military music is to music’, and the current state would fit well within those covers.

    About the only this the 8th District Court is doing is teaching fools here (myself included) how the US Court system DOES NOT work!

  23. hobartbaker says: May 13, 2011 4:28 PM

    The Eighth Circuit is most often referred to as “The Short Circuit” among legal afficionados.

  24. smacklayer says: May 13, 2011 4:28 PM

    There is no difference between the temporary motion and a permanent motion except for the words themselves. Obviously they didn’t feel compelled to make a new ruling based on the arguments, so they just left it is as, which is the same as making another ruling saying the same thing.

    You just have sour grapes. Good to see you are back to your usual short-sighted bias reporting. Also good to see you are back to your usual “I know more than federal judges” attitude.

  25. hobartbaker says: May 13, 2011 4:31 PM

    Don’t be alarmed by the empty seat in the photo. The elderly Justice normally occupying the spot is simply slumped over snoring and not dead of old age.

  26. malthor says: May 13, 2011 4:31 PM

    fatelvis77 here is why you’re wrong.

    replacement players are a joke, yea…..

    but most of us will forgive the owners for a season of scabs…..

    I don’t know anyone foolish enough to forgive the players for no season at all.

    At least they’re smarter than baseball players were, canceling the season after it started was totally unforgivable. Thus I won’t ever support baseball again.

  27. dkrause71 says: May 13, 2011 4:35 PM

    Maybe its just me, but if i was a judge that was going to potentially force the NFL to reopen its doors- ie have the NFL create their 2011 rules which the players can then continue anti-trust lawsuits on. I might take my time.

    Remember these cases will not only effect the NFL, but all sports leagues. Do you really want to be the judge that lead to either the NFL shutting down its business or the one that lead to the relative financial and competitive balance of leagues having revenue sharing, drafts, and caps without being 100% sure with your ruling. That would come before ruling in May for a sport that plays in September to me.

  28. deep64blue says: May 13, 2011 4:44 PM

    I think this bad for the players – I think they are working on a detailed rebuttal of Judge Nelson’s ruling, perhaps even agreeing with the NFL re jurisdiction and cancelling the June hearings.

  29. FinFan68 says: May 13, 2011 4:46 PM

    paulitik74 says:
    May 13, 2011 4:11 PM
    Activist judges. What in Judge Nelson’s ruling do they not understand? The lockout is illegal.

    Someone paid them off.
    ————————-
    Why is it an activist judge(s) if a ruling doesn’t go the way you expect? Why didn’t you view Nelson’s ruling as “activist”? It could simply be they have other matters to attend to.

    Personally, I don’t think this matter should be in the court system, but as far as the irreparable harm issue which is more likely as of this moment in time:
    1) the players are suffering irreparable harm because they are not afforded a few months of free agency to shop around for a potential suitor.
    2) The league will suffer irreparable harm if the lockout is lifted because they will be forced to operate in an environment that breeds additional anti-trust suits.

    I understand that the players would like to have more time but they are not missing any paychecks right now. Any harm they endure can be fixed with money awarded as damages and that is the opposite of “irreparable” harm.

    The players had a choice early on. They have ignored any issues involved in the collective bargaining process and added an entirely new set of issues by generating a different operating environment and suing under anti-trust laws that were not at issue prior to them leaving the bargaining table. They took this to court and in so doing have abdicated their ability to help control the time-frame. The courts could have simply thrown the case on the docket and scheduled hearings for the middle of November if they wanted to.

    This issue is bigger than the NFL labor strife. At a minimum, it could/will effect every professional sports league in the country. I would rather they get it right instead of tossing out a poorly thought out decision just for the sake of expedience.

  30. aymesq says: May 13, 2011 4:51 PM

    When the 8th Circuit issued the order referable to the current stay, it called it an “administrative stay” issued on order to give the judges time to consider the issue of the stay on the merits. By sitting on a ruling this long, the court is making a mockery of its own words, and is violating procedure referable to stays in general. They should be called out on it. Feel free:

    Steven M. Colloton
    United States Circuit Judge
    Des Moines, Iowa
    515-284-6356

  31. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: May 13, 2011 4:56 PM

    I think the 8th Circuit should NOT issue a ruling because, simply put, there’s no need to issue one until AFTER the June 3 oral arguments. Why should the Court be compelled to telegraph in advance to both parties how they’re likely to rule on the injunction? My thoughts here have been consistent all along. The pivotal issue on appeal does not center around primary jurisdiction, the applicability of Norris-LaGuardia, etc., but rather on the question of irreparable harm. That, I think, is the “Achilles’ heel” of Judge Nelson’s ruling, with all due respect. In my humble opinion, her order the enjoin the lockout was premature. I concede that at some point down the line, the players will indeed suffer irreparable harm—but not now. Just ask Reggie Bush and Wes Welker.

  32. rad312 says: May 13, 2011 4:57 PM

    Enough with the speculations and offering your opinions of the legal system…..there is a reason why you are not a judge and that you write a blog instead of practicing law……

    Here is a theory, in fact 2 theories, the 1st the 8th circuit is focused on the 5-June hearing which has a greater bearing on the future, and that they do not believe the players are being irreparably harmed…..

    There ya go, I have my theories, you have yours, and countless others have theirs…….so let’s stop speculating and offering boundless theories as ‘the fans’ who you claim to represent do not want to hear anymore theories or opinions…….we want the litigation to end and collective bargaining to begin with the end result of a CBA!!!!!

  33. fillyfan says: May 13, 2011 5:00 PM

    It’s amazing how the phrase “activist judge” has been convoluted to somehow apply to judges who refuse to litigate from the bench as opposed to it’s traditional association with liberal judges who decide cases outside the context of written law.

    Note in the Webster on-line definition below the words “direct vigorous action…” A judge who refuses to go beyond the indisputable intent of a written law is guilty of being “inactive,” if anything.

    “Definition of ACTIVISM
    : a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue”

  34. cincinnasti says: May 13, 2011 5:03 PM

    NFL wouldn’t truly be irreparably harmed by a temporary cessation of the lockout

    _________

    Getting rid of the salary cap, the salary floor, revenue sharing and the draft is irreparable. Once they’re gone we may never get them back.

  35. delebar says: May 13, 2011 5:06 PM

    “Perhaps the truth is that, given the legal standard that applies to motions of this nature, the Eighth Circuit simply can’t plausibly cut a path from Point A to Point B. Perhaps the judges realize that the NFL wouldn’t truly be irreparably harmed by a temporary cessation of the lockout, and that absent such harm a stay would not be justified.”

    Bingo. This is what I have thought all along. The Eighth Circuit is generally recognized as the most conservative federal appeallate district. The panel hearing this appeal is comprised of two conservatives and one liberal. Ever since the clerk first said that the court might never rule on the owners’ permanent stay motion I strongly suspected that the court didn’t want to do either of the following: 1) rule against the owners (see conserverative bias), or 2) rule for the owners in spite of the law and create a terrible precedent that they would then have to contort themselves into knots to distinguish in future cases. Easy solution: never rule on the motion.

    Oh, I know. This will shock and stun the pro-owner posters who will vote thumbs down on this post because it doesn’t conform to Republican talking points/ideological rhetoric. But as I said in an earlier post, welcome to reality. Conservative judges are every bit as “activist” as liberal ones.

  36. darrkkomens says: May 13, 2011 5:09 PM

    The judges need to make a decision, do your jobs, they are clearly favoring the owners and doing all they can to help them out. This is a fairly simple case and not a murder trail grant the stay or deny it. I’m right at the brink of writing off this whole season… If they the owners are granted at stay. I’m doing lockout on the NFL owners and players this season.

    I know many who is fed up and feeling the same, this is worst then a soap opera and neither side really cares about the fans because they can be and could have been negotiating instead of trying to get the upper hand.. I’m a die hard fan and have been since 5 by I can’t take this anymore.

    Everyday that goes by shows they don’t care about us fans and take us for granted.

  37. 2011to2020lions says: May 13, 2011 5:09 PM

    Maybe they are trying to tell the players and owners that if they don’t work this out on their own they can stretch this thing out a long way.

  38. brdnc says: May 13, 2011 5:11 PM

    I appreciate all your articles on the course of the strike. They are by far the best updating that I’ve found on the web.

    And, I know you went to law school. I’m guessing you never practiced law, because your attempts to guess what’s going on, by putting motives or thoughts in the judges’ heads is almost always way off, and based more on what a law student’s simplistic thinking might suggest than a realistic understanding of what happens in court.

    Here’s what’s going on in the simplest of terms. If the judges thought the stay should be vacated and the lockout lifted they’d do that. Nothing simpler. In fact they could do it with basically a one-line order (or of course a detailed one). They either have decided that the stay should not be vacated, so why waste another order doing what they’ve already done, or they’re not finished evaluating the issues or writing an opinion.

    But, with respect, you couldn’t be more naive in your suggestion that the judges don’t want to lift the lockout but aren’t ruling because they can’t come up with irreparable harm to the owners, so they’re keeping quiet. I assure you that there is irreparable harm floating all over this case and that the judges will have no problem finding irreperable harm to the owners.

    It’s also possible that the court could overrule the lower court on the other injunction standards. Or they could affirm.

    But, if you are desperate to read something into the lack of additional ruling, by far the most likely, is that they’re happy with the way they’ve already ruled and won’t waste time to just say “we meant it.”

  39. p4ever says: May 13, 2011 5:15 PM

    snnyjcbs says:
    May 13, 2011 4:21 PM
    By the Court allowing the Stay to be left in place they have in effect Ruled on the matter, you just are not happy with the results.
    ———————————
    That’s the point; they ruled on it hiding behind their mommys’ skirts

  40. andrewfbrowne says: May 13, 2011 5:17 PM

    Had the players not pursued this path this would be a non-issue. The Chinese have phrased it best, “be careful what you wish for.”

  41. bengals69 says: May 13, 2011 5:18 PM

    What is so hard to understand? The stay is in place till the NFL has their day in court.

    I hope these judges return to a simple world where they say players have the right to strike, owners have the right to lockout unless the public faces physical dangers, etc. Otherwise go pound sand and work it out yourselves.

  42. pixelito says: May 13, 2011 5:27 PM

    I love when bloody Americans get all upset when their Country’s court system is exposed for the sham that it is.

  43. dccowboy says: May 13, 2011 5:27 PM

    paulitik74 says: May 13, 2011 4:11 PM

    Activist judges. What in Judge Nelson’s ruling do they not understand? The lockout is illegal.

    Someone paid them off.

    =========

    Lol, naivete runs rampant.

    In order to rule on whether the stay is extended pending appeal the Judges say nothing about the strength of Judge Neslon’s ruling or the validity of her ruling or their opinion of it. A temporary stay was granted. The Judges can either rule on making the stay ‘permanent’ until the appeal is heard and ruled on or they can simply leave the ‘temporary’ stay in place, effectively ruling that the stay will remain in place until the appeal is decided. A stay is granted if the judges fell that ‘irreparable’ harm will be done to one party or the other if the order is implemented before the appeal is heard. BY letting the ‘temporary’ stay continue the Judges avoid having to make that determination.

    Nobody ‘paid them off’

  44. geo1113 says: May 13, 2011 5:28 PM

    When the 8th Circuit issued the order referable to the current stay, it called it an “administrative stay” issued on order to give the judges time to consider the issue of the stay on the merits. By sitting on a ruling this long, the court is making a mockery of its own words, and is violating procedure referable to stays in general. They should be called out on it. Feel free:

    Steven M. Colloton
    United States Circuit Judge
    Des Moines, Iowa
    515-284-6356
    _______________________

    Ring, ring

    Judge Colloton’s Admin: Hello, this is Judge Colloton’s office. How may I help you?

    Amyesq: May I spreak with Judge Colloton?

    Admin: May I ask who may is calling?

    Amyesq: This is Amyesq.

    Admin: What is your business with the judge?

    Amyesq: I am calling to discuss the Brady et al case with the judge.

    Admin: I’m sorry, but the judge is not taking calls regarding that case.

    Amyesq: But the…

    Admin: Have a nice day…click!

  45. buffalohogan says: May 13, 2011 5:31 PM

    Wow Mikes not pro player at all…demeaning the court, telling them they have to rule…nope not pro player at all.

    Take off taht tie and just show us that Pat White Jersey underneath…fraud…

  46. bunjy96 says: May 13, 2011 5:32 PM

    Why is PFT constantly asking for a ruling?

    There is nothing in the legal system that says they have to and when. There is no deadline and no p0arty to the action is being hurt by the delay, except maybe the players. But didn’t they initiate this action by decertifying instead of bargaining?

    Maybe PFT should file a petition with the court that they are doing irreparable harm to its readers by constantly badgering them with this garbage.

    Its obvious they will rule when they are damn well ready and not because PFT wants them to.

    No other site, that I am aware of, is constantly bringing this up. All the rest are aware they will do what they want.

    Give it up PFT and move on to another topic.

    I’m fed up seeing these same articles, repeatedly voicing the same OPINIONS, but no facts to support them.

  47. jakek2 says: May 13, 2011 5:36 PM

    It’s not for the 8th Circuit to say who will suffer irreparable harm. The simple purpose of an appellate court is to determine whether the lower court (Nelson) followed the law when reaching her decision.

    You people are losing sight of the big picture. The NFL is NOT getting a second bite at the apple unless the 8th Cir. (if IT follows the law) determines that Nelson overstepped her bounds. This is an extremely DIFFICULT burden for the NFL to overcome and the reason why only a TINY portion of cases get reversed on appeal.

    The temporary stay is merely the 8th Circuit’s own Hail Mary pass to see if the sides would settle before the appeal was actually heard.

  48. footballfan292 says: May 13, 2011 5:43 PM

    Keep in mind everyone…it’s the owners who don’t want any football for 2011. They want a cancelled season and get everything they ask for just like the NHL owners got a few years ago.

  49. jimr10 says: May 13, 2011 5:44 PM

    Mike, all you have to do is call up and tell them to do so. Simple.

  50. mick730 says: May 13, 2011 5:52 PM

    “Judge Susan Nelson has found that the players are suffering irreparable harm during the lockout. ”

    Yea, well she found wrong. As quote after quote from the “players’ has shown, they are all enjoying the hell out of not “working”. There is no harm in their minds, irreparable or reparable.

    And my guess is that the 8th circuit has already ruled by not ruling. The lockout stays in place. Deal with it.

    If the players don’t like it, they could actually sit down and negotiate a fair CBA that works for both parties, not just for them, or, they could go get a job.

    My guess is that they will just let their little yard gnome with the bad hats lead them around like the sheep they are until they miss their first paycheck. Then they’ll collapse like a house of cards.

    It should be a very amusing sight to behold.

  51. bsizemore68 says: May 13, 2011 6:00 PM

    Perhaps they are doing what the New York Times said that the Supreme Court has done, that is they favor corporations over the rest of us ( I didn’t say it, the Times said ) so I think it is what it is, or who to bless/ who to blame, where will this BS leave the fans, how about in the shi# can. Bill

  52. goombar2 says: May 13, 2011 6:00 PM

    Yeah, this is definitely getting to the absurd. The judges in the appellate aren’t there to create a new CBA or force one to be done. They’re there to interpret the law and in this case to see if new information exists or if something was over looked by Nelson.

    Right now they’re creating anarchy and lawlessness. That’s antithetical of their purpose. That anyone supports this is scary. Imagine courts not making decisions anymore because, well the constitution says one thing, but we don’t agree with the constitution so…

    If the 8th believes Nelson did interpret the law improperly and can state the reasons, fine. If not, end the stay. But this judicial activism based on politics is a path I don’t want this country going down.

  53. commandercornpone says: May 13, 2011 6:03 PM

    flawrieaux bias out in full force…

    what circus? they arent talking. you are. you are the circus. they dont have to rule until after orals.

    there was absolutely no irreparable harm, and the players’ actions and statements every day back that point up. nelson is simply a bigtime union judge.

  54. Deb says: May 13, 2011 6:29 PM

    Aren’t these three judges male? Gee, seems like only yesterday some of the lil boy commenters on PFT were whining about a woman (gasp!) deciding the fate of football. At least the woman actually made a decision. She didn’t dilly-dally with the jobs of thousands of people.

    Where have you gone Judge Susan Nelson, PFT nation turns its desperate eyes to you … woo woo woo

  55. thefiesty1 says: May 13, 2011 7:03 PM

    Irreparable harm on the players is a sham. They are just too stupid to accept a reasonable offer. Oh sorry, it was De Smith that walked out and decertified leaving the players swinging in the wind.

  56. nflfan101 says: May 13, 2011 7:18 PM

    Just more pro D. Smith and pro-player BS from PFT.

    It is clear that you don’t think that the NFL should even contest anything that D. Smith wants. Are you on his payroll?

  57. moochzilla says: May 13, 2011 8:02 PM

    The next time you think a client is asking you to do something that you think is a waste of time…refuse to do it.

    See what you boss thinks of that position. See if you still have the client the next day.

    Must be nice to be a government employee!!

  58. wesleya17 says: May 13, 2011 8:24 PM

    if the owners were not such a greedy bunch and foolish in the first place. they are the ones who sign these players to these outlandish contracts in the first place.then they find out they made a bad deal now they want do overs. if they had not tried to out bid each other over each player giving a rookie outlandish money before they played a day in the NFL and they sometimes are a bust.now they lock the players out like it’s the players fault they handed them the big contracts please give me a break. Once you put that much money on the table a player would be a fool not to take it. Now they want the courts to bail them out.After these same owners who hold our cities hostage to get new stadiums at tax payers expense or the will move to a city that will build it for them. So now they are using our tax dollars again wasting time in court about cutting the money pie in their favor and to hell with the fans and the players as long as they get the most money from the games. They want the NFL to be like the NCAA give a kid a scholarship to go to school and play football while the schools get millions,and if that kids gets a free sandwich from a fan he gets kicked out of school. but the school gets to keep it’s millions.So I say the owns can wait till HELL freezes over they brought it on themselves.

  59. airraid77 says: May 13, 2011 9:07 PM

    those who continue to use the word greedy?
    question for you? so you will be the first to have the government grant only what YOU NEED, and nothing you want. food water, bare essentials?
    or is that too greedy?

  60. footballrealist says: May 13, 2011 9:16 PM

    3 things:

    1) They can take a fresh bite of the apple if they want to. PFT is trying to paint them into a corner of what they most commonly do; however, the 8th can decide to take a clean look at the case.

    2) It could be perceived by the judges that the most harm to one party is if one party loses all leverage through court rulings. The ‘unofficial’ delay in the ruling gives time for the two parties to get back to the table before one of them is over a barrel.

    3) PFT is losing credibility as objective journalists with each of these judgement laden stories. You are as subtle as bullhorn in a library.

  61. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: May 13, 2011 9:25 PM

    @jakek2–If you think the issue of “irreparable harm to the players” is entirely outside the scope of review for the 8th Circuit, then read Appellants (NFL et al.) brief pp. 56-58.

  62. vahawker says: May 13, 2011 9:40 PM

    Here is a crazy thought, maybe the court has cases that are infinitely more important on the docket and bunch of greedy, whiny millionaires and billionaires squabbling like an unhappily married couple arguing over who should put the dirty dish in the dishwasher just isn’t a priority when taken in context.

  63. mrfrostyj says: May 14, 2011 12:37 AM

    I can’t believe elected officials would ever drop the ball on actually doing their job. This has never happend any other time. After all, look how great our economy is (can you taste the sarcasm).

    We live in a society where our elected officials threatend to hold the country they were elected to run hostage so that they and their collegues wouldn’t be held financially responsible for our countries debt and you expected the judicial system to make a ruling about football? Hillarious!

  64. petedutcher says: May 14, 2011 1:08 AM

    The fact that the court is taking so long to decide tells me they don’t care about hte players plight. I think the owners stand a good chance here.

    The question is this…if the players lose in the 8th circuit…will they take the case to the US Supreme Court?

  65. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 14, 2011 2:39 AM

    Deb says:

    “At least the woman actually made a decision. She didn’t dilly-dally with the jobs of thousands of people.”

    *******************************************

    I would rather 3 brilliant judges take their time and make the correct decision instead of one incompetent judge making the wrong decision.

    Just because judge Nelson made a quick decision doesn’t make it right. In fact she made a very wrog decision which has directly affected the jobs of thousands of people.

    Ball is in your court

  66. airraid77 says: May 14, 2011 7:21 AM

    Its amazing the authors of this stories had no problem when nelson took a week and a half, but they expect the 8 circuit to do it in a ny minute.
    Have no worries, the longer it takes, the more confident I grow in the idea that Not will the sham of this thing called a union be torn apart, but judge is going to get slapped silly. And set up a disasterous defeat for the unions in this country.

  67. oldhamletman says: May 14, 2011 9:16 AM

    we are here because the players circumvented labor law by dissolving the union and filed suit…. they didn’t want to negotiate fairly, so they exploited a loophole and now they gotta live with it….

  68. dryzzt23 says: May 14, 2011 9:43 AM

    Exactly old hamletman….

    So the players somehow have legal recourse to stop a lockout, yet if the players went on strike, there is no way for the owners to stop the strike and force the players back to work.

    And if the owners hired scab players, the striking NFL players would cry about it and say it is “illegal”.

    So according to the liberal legal system and union-biased judges:
    1. Players/unions can do whatever they want
    2. Business owners and entities should never force anything upon union workers lest there be irreparable damage to those union members
    3. If the union members happen to contribute to the judges re-election campaign, that is ok but if the business owners did the same then they are so wrong and should be fined for doing so

  69. sandyf79705 says: May 14, 2011 10:58 AM

    It is becoming blatantly obvious that the 8th circuit is not so much interested in upholding the law as it is trying to be conservative as it pertains to other cases this ruling may effect.

    Our judicial system is supposed to rule on the law whether they have different views on the subject or not. It is about ruling on the law, period. That is what the Court of Appeals is about. By not ruling they are making a mockery of the court system in favor of either being a Republican or a Democrat, exactly what is wrong with Congress now. Congress should be about the United States of America not what one particular party wants or not. Just as the Court of Appeals should rule on Judge Nelson interpretation of the law in her ruling. How it pertains to other cases or future cases should and must have no bearing. If she ruled correctly then say so, if she didn’t then say so but they have had more than enough time to make a ruling.

    It is nothing short of a political statement by that particular three judge panel something I believe the constitution says is not suppose to happen. These judges were appointed supposedly in that they would not let politics enter into their decisions and their decisions should be based on the law of the land.

    Again we are seeing how the judicial system isn’t working instead of how it should work. Similarly we see how a simple negotiation between the players and owners isn’t working because neither side gives a rat’s behind about anything other than trying to force the other into a deal that is only acceptable to one side. That is not a negotiation and each side is more comparable to a mafia family trying to gain control of more territory by destroying another mafia family.

    On Monday the 16th, if either side should present a viable offer of a new CBA that benefits both sides then I would definitely root for that side in the fray but apparently it is more about taking advantage over one side or the other. It is sad that the NFL had two plus years to present acceptable offers and chose not to do so. It is sad the players haven’t submitted a proposal for a fair CBA in the last two months. Both sides could have easily done so.

    If the owners don’t want to show their books, fine, then present a CBA proposal that is fair to both sides based solely on the knowledge that you have let the other side see, same goes to the players. These .coms that either side is putting out is akin to the political rhetoric we will see from candidates in 2012 running for president, in other words very little truth but a whole lot of lies.

    As to the shutdown, according to attorneys I know, if the NFL does shutdown then the best course of action may be for the players to sue owners individually to open their books as in a bankruptcy case. That will only mean the loss of the season and more bad blood. The NFL and players talk about being role models for kids. Well if this is being a role model, then we can expect many more criminals to hit the streets in the coming years or maybe just a huge influx of lawyers. Maybe that joke about “what do you have with 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea” does apply.

  70. airraid77 says: May 14, 2011 11:16 AM

    conservative means that you have a strict interpretation of the law……liberal means you have more wiggle room…..If anybody is breaking the law? its the libs.

  71. Deb says: May 14, 2011 11:37 AM

    @iamtalking …

    That depends on your perspective. Without again rehashing events to this point, many of us believe Judge Nelson made the correct decision in lifting the lockout. The owners could have taken that opportunity to impose last year’s rules and move forward with the season while negotiating a new CBA. The players would have dropped the antitrust suits–which the owners will not win if they stubbornly persist in proceeding. Then sooner, rather than later, the league would be back in business and those thousands of people would be back to work at full pay.

    Unfortunately, the owners decided instead to continue their game of high-stakes chicken with help from the procrastinating judges of the Eighth Circuit. Did you ever see Rebel Without a Cause? The chickie game did not end well for the Leader of the Pack.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!