Quote: “It was a 2-1 ruling that only said the decision met the minimum legal standard. It was not an endorsement of Goodell or the process.”
Once parties agree to binding arbitration, the basis under which any decisions made by the arbitrator(s) may be reviewed is limited. In the civil context it is limited by the American Arbitration Act. In labor disputes it is limited by a similar statute governing labor relations.
Of course the decision was not an endorsement. It was not a condemnation either. It was simply a decision based on the actual, legal authority granted to the reviewing court which is limited. In short, the appeals court found that the lower court had exceeded its authority in handing down its ruling overturning the arbitration.
In reading the lower court’s decision I was left shaking my head as the District Court judge substituted his judgment and his understanding of the facts for the arbitrators. It was as if it were a trial de novo. That is NOT, however, under the statute the role of the reviewing court.
If you are a conservative, this is what you want from your courts. You want them to respect the law even if it doesn’t give the results we would all like. It is how the late Justice Scalia viewed the law. Whereas in contrast a leftist judge would say, “screw the statute I have a job for life and this is the result I want. Yo, law clerk, whip something up to justify it.”
I understand the issue of the law. I understand that courts allow employers to discipline employees. I understand that that was the basis for the decision.
My point was that the NFL process was so rigged and dishonest that the court overturned the decision. The appeals court ruled 2-1.
The bar to overturn is extremely high. The process must be completely dishonest and egregiously fraudulent. It was dishonest enough to be overturned by the first judge. It was almost dishonest enough to lose on appeal.
That's exactly what I thought as well. It's kind of sad that it was even a split panel.
People are judging the court by what they think would be a "just" result rather than whether their decision was in accordance with the law.