(hatvol96 @ May 3 said:
So, you think the people who argued with the Dred Scott decision and "separate but equal" line of cases were acting ridiculously? I'm glad at least a good portion of this country doesn't engage in the type of slobbering, lock step worship of authority that you do. Nobody would be depriving the swimmers of anything. They can swim anytime they want. Just don't do it on the backs of the football players. A football player is more worthy. It's called a market economy. Football players produce tangible revenue. Swimmers produce ripples in a pool. The "spirit of fairness" you discuss has another name. Socialism.
Hat, without attempting to be too condescending, you have a poor grasp of some fundamental principles.
College football, regardless of your opinions of what should be, is not a business for the players.
If the players are so worthy, let them challenge the court's previously established mandates and attempt to skip college and go straight to the pros.
Aside from that happening, they are just college students who happen to play sports while getting a plum deal in scholarship and stipends.
If a player feels deprived or discriminated against, they have every right to take their case to the courts for relief.
Now, I wonder why they haven't done that? Could it be that the fundamental rights of a university to govern its athletics is inherent in the fabric of American jurisprudence.
Your use of the Dred Scot case, well, is just laughable.
Socialism? I have to admit, I laughed out loud at that one. The argument can apply to lesser institutions attempting to ride the backs of more affluent ones, but it can never be applied to a single institution that has the right, and the tried and proven mandate of the court, to implement its athletic programs within the guidelines of the propositions applying. You might not like that UT has a baseball team, but the administration does have a right to implement. As well, no player is forced to play. This is not in the same legal stratus as a man working to raise a family. As football fans, we all at times are prone to give a tad bit more importance to this sport we love than reality demands. Comparing the poor, deprived, underprivileged Division I football player to Dredd Scot? Please.
The courts, and correctly so, have determined that it is a GAME. There's a difference between an institution of learning and a Pro football team. Even in Maurice Clarett's attempt before the Supreme Court for his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the courts upheld the rights of the NFL to forbid Clarett's entrance into the draft. Unlike in the Scot case, where the courts found irrevocable harm, Justice Ginsburg in her original preliminary opinion determined, that should the lower courts verdict be overturned, Clarett would not be harmed since the NFL had agreed to hold a supplemental draft should Clarett win his case. You may not like judicial precedence, heck, you may not even like jurisprudence, and you may not agree with certain decisions, but to argue against them is akin to going up that squalid creek without a paddle. However, regardless of the precedence, everyone has a right to sue whomever they wish. I once had a professor who said, "Gentlemen, you can sue the Pope for being the father of a bastard child, but can you collect." Your use of Scot in this argument is as flawed as Maurice Claretts case before the court was. Thats why he lost on almost every turn.
A tip: When you over reach in debate, it is transparent that you're lacking substantial rhetoric to confirm your position.
