I may be all wet here, but I think that the courts are all going to have a tough time with this issue.
One of the legal tenants of our nation has always been that no man may be deprived of, ‘Life, Liberty or their property’ without due process.
While I agree that what Sterling said was wrong, stupid and idiotic, it was not illegal. Not even close.
It would probably be a good thing that Donald is no longer involved with the Clippers. Having said that, I believe that forcing him to sell the Clippers would set a very dangerous precedent(not so much a slippery slope, but more like skydiving without a parachute).
With one leg of our jurisprudence kicked out from under us, the other two would also eventually fall.
It's not the Government which is depriving him, it's the NBA, a private club whose rules he agreed to follow. Courts have almost invariably upheld the rights of Sports Commissioners to punish players, owners and coaches.
While I agree that what Sterling said was wrong, stupid and idiotic, it was not illegal. Not even close.
Who said it has to be illegal? The standard under the NBA Constitution is "conduct not in the best interest of professional basketball." Given the immediate loss by the Clippers of most of their sponsors when the Sterling tape was released, followed by a threatened players' boycott, Sterling's remarks were clearly not in the best interests of the NBA.
It would probably be a good thing that Donald is no longer involved with the Clippers. Having said that, I believe that forcing him to sell the Clippers would set a very dangerous precedent(not so much a slippery slope, but more like skydiving without a parachute).
What precedent would be set that wasn't previously set in the Marge Schott and George Steinbrenner cases?