Len Simon

There is a misunderstanding when it comes to impeachment of judges. You only need a simple majority in the house to impeach any judge. Once impeached, it goes to the senate where you need 67 votes to remove them. In other words, the House can impeach every one of these leftist loons tomorrow of they wanted to. By doing so, these judges will have to defend their ruling before the senate and the people. Granted most won't be removed, but the process will be its own punishment, and it will stop most of these crazy rulings.

Crazy that so many people still don’t know that this is the best vehicle you can own right now. There is nothing even remotely close.

Final: Padres 2, Dodgers 1 WP: Darvish (3-3) LP: Snell (3-2) SV: Suárez (34) The NL West is tied once more (although LA has the head-to-head tiebreaker). The Dodgers were held to three hits, and they got two of them in the 9th. Record: 73-56

House v NCAA - An analogy to help explain the injunctive relief class conflicts. Imagine some lawyers figure out there is a way to file class action lawsuit to get money for Wal-Mart employees. They search for and find a Wal-Mart employee to represent the class and they file a lawsuit on behalf of all Wal-Mart employees. The lawyers and Wal-Mart agree to settle the class action and allocate more money to Wal-Mart employees. They send a class action Notice to all Wal-Mart employees which tells them the good news, "Wal-Mart will pay more money to employees!" The employees don't need to opt-in. They can't opt-out. They can object if they want, but why?. And they will be forced to release Wal-Mart for any past, present or future claims. Then, only after the terms of settlement are made more public does the following become clear: only 20% of the the class members will get more money, 80% will get nothing, and worse, 10% of the class members will be fired to help pay for the 20%. To be sure, Wal-Mart can make those types of tradeoffs and decisions in the normal course of business. But, in a class action, that type of tradeoff, and actual harm, to a subset of class members cannot happen. The 10% cannot be fired and sacrificed to pay more to the 20%. The class members have equal rights. Obviously, no judge would conclude that settlement meets the legal standard of "fair" to all class members. That is what is happening in the House v NCAA case. The judge has recognized that there is a subset of class members being harmed by the terms of the settlement. She knows she cannot approve the settlement until the Parties agree to protect them. Granting grandfather protection from roster cuts related to the terms of the settlement is necessary, not optional. The lawyers for the Parties have proposed a plan that makes grandfather protection optional. No judge can conclude that giving defendants the option to harm class members meets the legal standard of "fair".

You are correct. The revenue sharing does result in tradeoffs at the expense of many class members for the benefit of a minority of the class. It is my understanding that such tradeoffs may be permissible in class action settlements. However, the "harm" upon which Judge Wilken is focused is that some class members will actually lose something very valuable when they lose their roster spot, including their status as class members. I am not aware of any precedent that permits that harm and the lawyers in this case have not cited one. That is beyond a tradeoff.

"Is this is a mandated grandfather-in or is it optional and each school will choose how to do that?" This is not a policy discussion, it is a class action lawsuit. The athletes at issue are members of the class. The settlement can't harm those members to benefit others. Grandfather status for these athletes cannot be optional.

Nobody is talking about this key detail in the House settlement: athletes will receive just 22% of revenue (first-year cap: $20.5M). ⚡ Football will likely get 75-80% of that, meaning roughly $15M of total revenue will go to football players. ⚡ In pro sports, athletes get ~50% of revenue. If we applied that model here: 💰 22% of revenue = $94M total pool → $20.5M cap 💰 50% of revenue = $47M total pool → $35M football cap That’s a massive gap. And yet, no one is talking about how this number was set—without input from the athletes, especially football players, who drive the revenue.