ADVERTISEMENT

Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again . . . go back to @obfuscating 's post. Read the words that he wrote. Then read my response. Then read @Steamboat529529 's post and my response to it.

There are two separate issues:
1. Whether it is sound policy to forgive a certain amount of student loan debt.
2. Whether the grant of power provided by HEROES Act of 2003 (approved by Congress and signed into law by George Bush) to the Secretary of Education encompasses forgiving student loan debt as a result of Donald Trump's declaring a state of national emergency because of COVID-19.

The first is a policy question. The second is a procedural question.

I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . as for #2, I don't believe that the HEROES Act should (or will) be interpreted as broadly as the Biden Administration wants it to be interpreted.

That written, the Biden Administration's interpretation of a Congressional Act from 2003 (Bush was President) which authorized the Secretary of Education to take action with respect to payment of student loans after a declaration of a state of National Emergency (declaration was made by Trump) is a far cry different than the National Emergency that was declared solely for the purpose of freeing up funds for building a border wall when Congress specifically refused to provide the funding that Trump wanted.

We've seen what a President will do to authorize spending . . . and it was cheered loudly by a significant %age of the population - most of whom seem outraged over Biden trying to use an Act of Congress and Trump's National Emergency Declaration to forgive a certain percentage of student loan debt.
I mean building a wall wasn’t the answer, but immigration needs to be at the top of our “emergency” issues that have been left unaddressed. It’s a legitimate emergency in this country right now. Student debt, no way.
 
I mean building a wall wasn’t the answer, but immigration needs to be at the top of our “emergency” issues that have been left unaddressed. It’s a legitimate emergency in this country right now. Student debt, no way.
Two can play the game . . . if immigration is such an issue, change the makeup of the House and the Senate and pass a law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PNWHawk and littlez
I love your legal mind
I love your legal mind, but I believe you have this one wrong. It was executive action though I am not sure if formal executive order.
What you reference is why Biden thinks the executive order is legal. SCOTUS will not agree.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the loud mouth guy that was organizing the ex-players and always speaking out like he knew everything and was going to win! Was he their lawyer?
Robert T Green I believe is his name. He was not their lawyer. I looked him up on Facebook last night and not a single post about it.
 
The ON3 site is saying here is a very real scenario that the Iowa BOR has some sort of settlement with these yahoos that filed suit against Kirk, Brian, and the others. Not sure if that is true or not. Really sucks if it is true
 
  • Like
Reactions: dean_oliver222
Everything about this topic is political but the procedure of the case. It is the "lawfare" nature of the woke mindset/movement. It represents much of what is wrong with wokeism. A couple of examples:

(1) a player claimed racism from being told that he should select an easier major than engineering due to the time commitment associated with both varsity football and the hard math-based curriculum in the engineering department. Somewhere and sometime that player was taught that such a statement was a manifestation of racial animus. How? The player couldn't provide any evidence that only black players are told to take easier majors, because no such evidence exists. The proposition is ridiculous on its face. Some players can manage pre med and varsity football. Some players can barely manage general ed. Maybe the coaches underestimated the guy's intelligence or work ethic but there is no reason to believe it was racially motivated.

(2) another player claimed racial disparity because he was given a stiffer penalty for OWI than a group of white players that received minors in possession tickets. Of course, the guy that committed an indictable crime subject to mandatory incarceration and laden with all kinds of social opprobrium (inappropriately-we will get to that part) and thus embarrassment for the program and the University would receive a harsher punishment than MIPs, that are functionally akin to a traffic violation. Who taught that player racism explained the difference? Somewhere he learned that stupid conclusion. Of course, the comparison should be of white and black players receiving disparate treatment for similar offenses. Other than both requiring alcohol there is no link between MIP and OWI. Only a delusional paranoid, or a badly misguided and poorly educated person would see racism in that conduct.

The case itself bespeaks the political motivations behind the legal action. Several Plaintiffs didn't survive their statute of limitations problems. Their lawyers knew that going in. The surviving few Plaintiffs could not identify specific facts that supported any of their allegations-that's clear on the summary record. Then, in depositions, the surviving Plaintiffs largely recanted even those conclusory facts. The plan was grab attention, grind some old axes against the coaches and maybe shake down the University for some money, mostly legal fees. More importantly race bait to feed the grievance mentality. Who does this divisive conduct ultimately benefit?
 
Two can play the game . . . if immigration is such an issue, change the makeup of the House and the Senate and pass a law.
Good idea. Impeach and remove the President that will not enforce immigration law?

I mean building a wall wasn’t the answer,
While not the only answer, why isn't a physical barrier (e.g. fortifications) the first defense against unlawful entry? You have doors, right. The absence of doors would certainly increase the profit margin in burglary.

There are many other things that also need to be done but making it physically more difficult to illegally enter is an imperative of every functioning government. Indeed, isn't the first duty of a national government the definition of its borders and securing those borders against those who would enter illegally?
 
Everything about this topic is political but the procedure of the case. It is the "lawfare" nature of the woke mindset/movement. It represents much of what is wrong with wokeism. A couple of examples:

(1) a player claimed racism from being told that he should select an easier major than engineering due to the time commitment associated with both varsity football and the hard math-based curriculum in the engineering department. Somewhere and sometime that player was taught that such a statement was a manifestation of racial animus. How? The player couldn't provide any evidence that only black players are told to take easier majors, because no such evidence exists. The proposition is ridiculous on its face. Some players can manage pre med and varsity football. Some players can barely manage general ed. Maybe the coaches underestimated the guy's intelligence or work ethic but there is no reason to believe it was racially motivated.

(2) another player claimed racial disparity because he was given a stiffer penalty for OWI than a group of white players that received minors in possession tickets. Of course, the guy that committed an indictable crime subject to mandatory incarceration and laden with all kinds of social opprobrium (inappropriately-we will get to that part) and thus embarrassment for the program and the University would receive a harsher punishment than MIPs, that are functionally akin to a traffic violation. Who taught that player racism explained the difference? Somewhere he learned that stupid conclusion. Of course, the comparison should be of white and black players receiving disparate treatment for similar offenses. Other than both requiring alcohol there is no link between MIP and OWI. Only a delusional paranoid, or a badly misguided and poorly educated person would see racism in that conduct.

The case itself bespeaks the political motivations behind the legal action. Several Plaintiffs didn't survive their statute of limitations problems. Their lawyers knew that going in. The surviving few Plaintiffs could not identify specific facts that supported any of their allegations-that's clear on the summary record. Then, in depositions, the surviving Plaintiffs largely recanted even those conclusory facts. The plan was grab attention, grind some old axes against the coaches and maybe shake down the University for some money, mostly legal fees. More importantly race bait to feed the grievance mentality. Who does this divisive conduct ultimately benefit?
"Coddling of the American mind".
 
I have read with great interest the legal analysis of those that know the process as it applies to this case.

The political part that has entered the thread? Not so much. Perhaps starting another thread for it? Maybe letting the other person have the last word so the thread can stay on topic? Not my strong suit but hopefully others have that control?
 
Everything about this topic is political but the procedure of the case. It is the "lawfare" nature of the woke mindset/movement. It represents much of what is wrong with wokeism. A couple of examples:

(1) a player claimed racism from being told that he should select an easier major than engineering due to the time commitment associated with both varsity football and the hard math-based curriculum in the engineering department. Somewhere and sometime that player was taught that such a statement was a manifestation of racial animus. How? The player couldn't provide any evidence that only black players are told to take easier majors, because no such evidence exists. The proposition is ridiculous on its face. Some players can manage pre med and varsity football. Some players can barely manage general ed. Maybe the coaches underestimated the guy's intelligence or work ethic but there is no reason to believe it was racially motivated.

(2) another player claimed racial disparity because he was given a stiffer penalty for OWI than a group of white players that received minors in possession tickets. Of course, the guy that committed an indictable crime subject to mandatory incarceration and laden with all kinds of social opprobrium (inappropriately-we will get to that part) and thus embarrassment for the program and the University would receive a harsher punishment than MIPs, that are functionally akin to a traffic violation. Who taught that player racism explained the difference? Somewhere he learned that stupid conclusion. Of course, the comparison should be of white and black players receiving disparate treatment for similar offenses. Other than both requiring alcohol there is no link between MIP and OWI. Only a delusional paranoid, or a badly misguided and poorly educated person would see racism in that conduct.

The case itself bespeaks the political motivations behind the legal action. Several Plaintiffs didn't survive their statute of limitations problems. Their lawyers knew that going in. The surviving few Plaintiffs could not identify specific facts that supported any of their allegations-that's clear on the summary record. Then, in depositions, the surviving Plaintiffs largely recanted even those conclusory facts. The plan was grab attention, grind some old axes against the coaches and maybe shake down the University for some money, mostly legal fees. More importantly race bait to feed the grievance mentality. Who does this divisive conduct ultimately benefit?

There is no such thing as wokeism. Its a made up construct straw man for you to categorize anything you don't like.

The case may lack merit, but just stop with that nonsense.
 
The ON3 site is saying here is a very real scenario that the Iowa BOR has some sort of settlement with these yahoos that filed suit against Kirk, Brian, and the others. Not sure if that is true or not. Really sucks if it is true

That is our system. It works towards settlements. You can blame insurance companies. They have calculated that settling is generally cheaper.
 
Everything about this topic is political but the procedure of the case. It is the "lawfare" nature of the woke mindset/movement. It represents much of what is wrong with wokeism. A couple of examples:

(1) a player claimed racism from being told that he should select an easier major than engineering due to the time commitment associated with both varsity football and the hard math-based curriculum in the engineering department. Somewhere and sometime that player was taught that such a statement was a manifestation of racial animus. How? The player couldn't provide any evidence that only black players are told to take easier majors, because no such evidence exists. The proposition is ridiculous on its face. Some players can manage pre med and varsity football. Some players can barely manage general ed. Maybe the coaches underestimated the guy's intelligence or work ethic but there is no reason to believe it was racially motivated.

(2) another player claimed racial disparity because he was given a stiffer penalty for OWI than a group of white players that received minors in possession tickets. Of course, the guy that committed an indictable crime subject to mandatory incarceration and laden with all kinds of social opprobrium (inappropriately-we will get to that part) and thus embarrassment for the program and the University would receive a harsher punishment than MIPs, that are functionally akin to a traffic violation. Who taught that player racism explained the difference? Somewhere he learned that stupid conclusion. Of course, the comparison should be of white and black players receiving disparate treatment for similar offenses. Other than both requiring alcohol there is no link between MIP and OWI. Only a delusional paranoid, or a badly misguided and poorly educated person would see racism in that conduct.

The case itself bespeaks the political motivations behind the legal action. Several Plaintiffs didn't survive their statute of limitations problems. Their lawyers knew that going in. The surviving few Plaintiffs could not identify specific facts that supported any of their allegations-that's clear on the summary record. Then, in depositions, the surviving Plaintiffs largely recanted even those conclusory facts. The plan was grab attention, grind some old axes against the coaches and maybe shake down the University for some money, mostly legal fees. More importantly race bait to feed the grievance mentality. Who does this divisive conduct ultimately benefit?
It was like the law firm commercials on tv seeking plaintiffs for whatever the class action of the day is.
 
Nothing more fun than listening, in this case reading, people who make everything political🙄
 
I'm not sure what was more pathetic:

-Akrum Wadley pocketing money from fans and never sending memorabilia.

OR

-The fact that there were adults who were compelled to send money for the autograph of....Akrum Wadley.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dean_oliver222
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT