What do you expect? She’s a Louisiana judge and wants to get re-elected.

Conflict of interest.”

I’ve read stupidity before, but this takes the cake…and on top of it there are 260 dumb-asses that thumbed it up. No wonder this country is in the shape it is in with these gullible sheeples. Re-elected…were you kidding?

The more Vilma (and Brees) talk to the media, the more I think this is the outcome they’re realistically shooting for.

mwindle1973 says: Aug 10, 2012 12:20 PM

I think the key words here are, “if I can find a legal way to do it.” It implies that she is trying to find a legal way to do it and can’t. This jives with my suspicion that this is an improper attempt to circumvent a collective bargaining process just like the NFL claims. Just because the judge thinks Vilma is right, doesn’t mean the law will allow her to side with him. Anyway her decision is largely irrelevant if she rules for Vilma. His lawyer picked this court. They picked a judge that they thought might rule in their favor. They won’t have that advantage when it is appealed. On the other hand if she doesn’t rule in favor of Vilma no judge probably will. But they know they have little chance of winning. It’s all about getting the suspension put on hold so he can play this season.

______________

You can see I posted this at 12:20 then it is deleted. WHy? I guess there is an obvious attempt to rid the article of comments that point out the obvious.
__________________

See what I mean…check back deleted again. You can clearly see I posted comment at 12:20 then copied it, FLorio deletes, I post at 12:58, copy again, then FLorio deletes, I post again. SO you can clearly see his lack of professional values doesn’t just apply to articles like this.

Often times judges realize something is unfair and want to correct bit but the law that party. Oftentimes they will express their outrage at the bad actor but still decide in that partys favor. That is what she seems to be saying here. That unless the arbitrator decides in the players favor or Vilmas lawyers can give her a better legal theory she is going to decide with the league. Even though that is something she would rather not do.

One thing that is taught and drilled into every lawyer in law school is fairness and the importance of due process. Something Vilma was not granted here. I am not surprised she was outraged. But things like this happen everyday where judges have to decide against people they think are right and have been unfailry damaged. But in this case its not because of poor law but because of a poor agreement made by the players.

What are judges there for if not to render an opinion? Judges should approach a trial with impartiality, but the nature of their job is to let the facts of the case sway them one way or another. She’s clearly found Vilma’s arguments more compelling, but isn’t sure if there is a legal remedy.

What do you think would happen if a judge failed to have an opinion on every case before them?

In this case it’s more like the juror saying “if you don’t show me any evidence to support your claim then I’m going to find for the other guy.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The one making a “claim” in this court is Vilma, not the league. Simply saying the process was unfair should not be enough for Vilma to win. He would have to show evidence to support his claim that the league violated the process agreed upon in the CBA. That should be pretty hard to do since he 1) failed to participate in the investigation 2) chose not to discuss the initial findings with Goodell 3) grandstanded and left the appeal process and 4) never offered a defense of any kind until the process he is complaining about was over.

____________________________

About as messed up as when Goodell did it to the players.

This judge should be ashamed of herself if she doesn’t anything but dismiss the players request to overturn the suspensions.

@jimr10 : you are the smartest most intelligent person I’ve ever read a blog post from. You’re view is exactly right on and correct and I have absolutely nothing bad to say about your intelligence level or complete and total lack there of. I wish there were more people like you in the world just so I could continue to feel like the smartest person alive.

No, it keeps Goodell from making crap up.

But really Vilma? Do you really want to be that guy? Your coaches took “full responsibility” for what happened….

What if the player who told all this stuff is still on the team. Should the NFL say who he is and what he said. Will the team keep the guy and let him play.
————————-
Who says it was a player? Who says it was not some disgruntled former office staffer who had an axe to grind and has no credibility at all in terms of their ability to know the truth?

My guess is that this NFL excuse that “we want to protect whistle blowers” is a sanctimonious, phony smokescreen. I say there are two reasons why Goodell will not reveal the evidence – the “evidence” and “witnesses” will not stand up to scrutiny (as in fact we have already seen with the so-called “ledger”), and/or the evidence also includes evidence that this practice was widespread all over the league, which he does not want to become public because of the concussion lawsuits.

She’s a federal judge with lifetime tenure. She doesn’t have elections.

May be time for a new username..

Comments like…
Judge- “I would like to rule in Vilma’s favor. I do think you exhausted your remedies.”

“I do think you exhausted remedies before Mr. Goodell. You were thwarted at every turn by Goodell. Penalties were too harsh.”

“However, I don’t think you’ve exhausted remedies under Burbanks, so I’m not sure I can do anything.”

Judge thinks process was unfair, punishment excessive, and that RG did not have power to discipline in these cases.

Berrigan looked like she wants to stay out and for NFL/players to settle for suspensions.

No ruling from judge. Urges parties to talk because she will need time to decide. Settlement may be faster than her decision.

May need to exhaust internal appeal of burbank ruling & judge suggests that cartoffs are bounties. So, mostly good for plyrs, but bag mixed

Long story short there is a long list of tweets about this event and this isn’t the first installment. There have already been testimonies and hearings and even this morning she had already delved into cartoffs etc prior to talking about her thoughts. The fact that so many “fans” can read a story or comment out of context and draw a sweeping opinion is the genesis and continuation of this issue.

How about some with such strong opinions actually leave the article and find the rest of the detail before you decide what someone did, lied, and sued about.

What do you expect? She’s a Louisiana judge and wants to get re-elected.

Conflict of interest.
_________________________________

Hey “genius” fan — she is a federal judge with a lifetime appointment.

I am a neutral party in this. I want to see “discovery” of ALL THE “EVIDENCE”, RG had and in turn used in his decision process to punish the players, coaches, and organization.

If it is not up to snuff. If it is as benign as all of the other pay for performance programs that have been going on throughout the league for years.. One must question Goodell’s motive in this. Is it to “protect the game”, or is it posturing for the future injury lawsuits by retired players?

Looks like Kessler and smith now own the NFL. why is anyone surprised a liberal democrat judge would rule in favor of what is right.

————————————————-

Only really stupid people believe that only liberal judges make bad decisions. Fact is, both sides make horrible decisions at times. Campaign finance being at the top of the list for conservatives. Please leave the political commentary on foxnews or cnn. I just want to hear about football.