Brett Kavanaugh didn’t think Dez Bryant caught it, because the rules said he didn’t

Getty Images

Perhaps if the whole Supreme Court thing doesn’t work out, the NFL could put Brett Kavanaugh in charge of its rules.

(And since one owner has already decided to not “stick to football” and endorse him, he’d probably have an easier confirmation hearing there anyway.)

During a speech at Marquette University Law School in 2015, Kavanaugh (then a judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals) made reference to Dez Bryant‘s infamous non-catch against the Packers in the 2014 playoffs.

Via the Milwakuee Journal Sentinel, Kavanaugh was making a point about separation of powers when he played to his Wisconsin audience.

“It’s better when the rules governing a catch are set forth before Dez Bryant falls to the ground,” Kavanaugh said. “Because the rule said, that was it. If we can do it in the NFL, we can do it here as well.”

At the time, the letter of the law dictated that officials were right to nullify the reception, though that has changed with the latest football case-law.

And we’ll see if Kavanaugh ends up on the highest court in the land if he still believes in the power of precedent on a number of important matters, or follows the NFL plan and makes up reactionary new rules when the winds change direction.

35 responses to “Brett Kavanaugh didn’t think Dez Bryant caught it, because the rules said he didn’t

  1. He did the right thing by following the rule and not the feeling. Exactly what is required in the job.

  2. go get your eyesight checked Brett, it was clearly a catch & you and all those other clowns know it.

    btw have fun working for that other clown!

  3. A rules guy, eh ? So, when it says the speed limit is 55 mph, he’s telling me that he doesn’t drive at least 60 mph ? That’s speeding. What a dummy.

  4. Supporting Kavanaugh does not make you pro America, it just validates that your anti Liberal. Pretty much the same as being a Trump supporter.

  5. Catch up. The “rule at the time” stated that a catch was established once a player got two feet in bounds and made a “football move”, and the mistake in the rule was that IT DIDN’T CLEARLY ESTABLISH WHAT A FOOTBALL MOVE IS. The rule was THEN adjusted afterward to present four scenarios that would fall under the definition, and then this year’s change included language that INCLUDES “extending the football”. In other words, reaching for the goalline has always been at least under consideration as such, and absent a clear definition of a “football move” the LETTER OF THE LAW STATES THAT AMBIGUITY SHOULD BE DECIDED BY STICKING WITH THE CALL ON THE FIELD. Because Bryant met the other criteria for a catch and ambiguously met the “football move” criteria as well, AND because the call on the field was a catch, BY RULE the call should have stood, given a lack of CLEAR evidence that Bryant failed to make a football move. Any “constitutionalist” judge who claims to rule “according to the text” would know to interpret the rule that way.

  6. “… if he still believes in the power of precedent.”

    People love the power of precedent if they don’t want the court’s stance on an issue to change. If they think the law is outdated, they ignore the precedent.

  7. Much like that play, this is an awful big stretch. When a sports opinion blogger goes out of their way to criticize the SCOTUS nominee, that’s when you know you probably picked the right person for the job…

  8. “jg2040 says:

    July 10, 2018 at 9:52 am

    If we always went by the power of precedent, Dez Bryant would be considered 3/5 of a person. (See Dred Scott decision)”
    __________________________________________

    The Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with the 3/5 compromise.

  9. jg2040 says:
    July 10, 2018 at 9:52 am
    If we always went by the power of precedent, Dez Bryant would be considered 3/5 of a person. (See Dred Scott decision)

    ====================

    Hard to make two big mistakes in two sentences, that’s what it is.

    Black slaves weren’t counted as 3/5 of a person under court precedent, it was done under the Constitution in Aricle I, Section 2, Clause 3. Precedent had nothing to do with it. (Besides, slaves weren’t even treated as 3/5 of a person, since slaves didn’t get 3/5 of a vote; slaves could not vote, but states in which there were slaves could count slaves as 3/5 of a person for purpose of Congressional representation, which meant that white people in slave states got bonus votes in Congress for owning slaves).

    The Dred Scott decision itself was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. However, the awful Dred Scott decision should not have happened in the first place. The relevant existing precedents were ignored by the majority opinion that has been held in disgrace for the past 161 years. The precedents that were ignored held that Dred Scott could not be forced back into slavery.

  10. Why is this even on here? Stir up controversy? We have enough of that going on already…stick strictly to football please.

  11. All I need to know about Brett Kavanaugh; after being a lead prosecutor and primary author of the report issued by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, which dogged Bill Clinton for years and looked at every single aspect of his personal and professional life, a Republican was elected President, with the help of the Supreme Court.
    He then immediately wrote that it was wrong for a President to be investigated for criminal behavior, to be held civilly liable (Paula Jones), or to be subject to subpoena.
    He urged Congress to pass legislation that would prevent what he had done to a President, from being done to another.
    It makes it impossible to trust him.
    But this opinion he expressed is precisely why Trump chose him.
    Rightly or wrongly, he believes Kavanaugh is his get out of jail free card.

  12. Correct judges = follow the law as it was written by legislators. Liberal judges = make up laws that democrats could never get passed in legislatures.

  13. Conservative judges think the President shouldn’t be subject to lawsuits because they’re a distraction.

    Rational people think that the President shouldn’t get himself into situations where he’s subject to lawsuits in the first place.

    Conservatives < Dung

  14. Heck, even I knew it wasn’t a catch. I was there, saw it, called it. It wasn’t difficult.

  15. “If we can do it in the NFL, we can do it here as well.”

    Using this kind of logic may qualify this entitled preppy for a grade-school custodian position, but God help us all if he actually becomes a supreme court judge.

    Terrifying!

  16. Pretty much says the Judge is able to set aside personal feelings on an issue and use written rule of law to make decisions. And here I thought PFT would be slandering the guy to try and keep him off the SC bench. He will be confirmed and even a few.democrats will vote for him.

  17. thats what a judge does tho. none of this activist judge nonsense. ots up to congress to change laws. not judges

  18. He was speaking to a Wisconsin audience and he wanted to finish his speech. What was he expected to say?

  19. Its almost a shame Dez didn’t catch it.

    Would have saved McCarthy some real embarrassment the following week.

    .. of course, with 4:42 left, and Rodgers carving the Cowboys up (125 rating) the Packers probably would have won regardless.

  20. tokyosandblaster says:
    July 10, 2018 at 12:21 pm
    Conservative judges think the President shouldn’t be subject to lawsuits because they’re a distraction.

    Rational people think that the President shouldn’t get himself into situations where he’s subject to lawsuits in the first place.

    Conservatives < Dung

    So…. the Monica Lewinski situation was what???? clown

Leave a Reply

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