Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Maybe. I tend to think that Berman was just looking for reasons to overturn the decision.
|
Say what? I thought you were essentially suggesting that Berman ruled against the league on the law, and didn't have a view on the underlying facts, which is why there was no vindication for Brady. But now you're telling me that the legal reasoning was pretextual, and that he was looking for a reason to rule against the league. But presumably not because he thinks Brady didn't do it. So then why?
Quote:
|
Your argument under 2 is unconvincing and, in fact, really just reinforces the fact that you're looking for what you want to find.
|
In my world, a federal judge uses scarequotes to indicate sarcastically that he thinks something is stupid. (Not just federal judges -- other people do it too.) There's no reason for a close reading in your world, because Berman doesn't really believe what he's saying -- he's just results-oriented -- and anything I see in what he says is really just a sublimated indication of my own desire for 'Brady fellatio'.
You world is depressing and I'm glad I don't live there.
Quote:
|
As for 3, your conclusion doesn't address the League's argument, it just restates what Berman seized on, which is exactly what Kessler wanted him to. See my post in response to Burger.
|
Berman did address the league's argument, and he rejected for reasons that I would bother to relate if I thought that both of us would attach some significance to what he said.
