|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 12:57:50 GMT -6
Historically, judges have made interpretations that reflect the party lines of the President who appointed them. Judges who are appointed by Democrats will side with opinions and judges who are appointed by Republicans will reflect Conservative agendas. Extreme judges of any party are equally as dangerous. Case closed, you win counselor! Court adjourned! I carry on my cell phone several documents and apps. You can download them for free in your app store. The Constitution with all the Amendments and the Bill of Rights. The Federalist Papers, The Bible App, The Book of Martyrs, Commentary on Revelation, Spurgeons Commentary on Psalms and The Magisterieum of the Roman Catholic Church and The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and the app The Christian Patriot. I urge all readers of faith to download and read them all.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 13:02:41 GMT -6
Historically, judges have made interpretations that reflect the party lines of the President who appointed them. Judges who are appointed by Democrats will side with opinions and judges who are appointed by Republicans will reflect Conservative agendas. Extreme judges of any party are equally as dangerous. Isn't this exactly the problem? That judges take upon themselves their own personal bias instead of looking for strict constitutional interpretation? Isn't that the argument against Scalia, Thomas and Souter by the left? That they are strict constitutional judges no matter the president's party in power? It was all begun by Justice Blackmon, the first to use his position as a Justice to forward a personal political agenda. He authored Roe vs Wade. A Republican who was thought to be a strict Conservative Constitutionalist that turned out not to be what he was advertised much like Roberts who views the constitution as a living document to be change by caveat from the bench. Blackmon was appointed by Eisenhower. Your point is not lost on me. I was just offering a bit of legal insight to the split situation. The last thing I want to do is have a political debate on sports message board. Hope my perspective helped.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 13:46:15 GMT -6
Isn't this exactly the problem? That judges take upon themselves their own personal bias instead of looking for strict constitutional interpretation? Isn't that the argument against Scalia, Thomas and Souter by the left? That they are strict constitutional judges no matter the president's party in power? It was all begun by Justice Blackmon, the first to use his position as a Justice to forward a personal political agenda. He authored Roe vs Wade. A Republican who was thought to be a strict Conservative Constitutionalist that turned out not to be what he was advertised much like Roberts who views the constitution as a living document to be change by caveat from the bench. Blackmon was appointed by Eisenhower. Your point is not lost on me. I was just offering a bit of legal insight to the split situation. The last thing I want to do is have a political debate on sports message board. Hope my perspective helped. I think it is inevitable that it all boils down to basic political philosophy. Public schools are driven and controlled by government and are political entities. What you see with the LHSAA today is the bureaucracy overstepping its authority of sorts. The Bureaucrat principal rules his school with little outside interference or oversite and now has extended that rule to a vote of the LHSAA. Bureaucrats are suppose to serve the people, but instead now seek to control all the people. Private schools are outside of their control, so they are moving to diminish and ultimately seek to eliminate them from society. If nothing else, the SPLIT is quintessentially political to the point of excess. Now will the private schools acquiesce to the government bureaucrat or move to independence? I think everyone knows where I stand there. Join or DIE!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 16:52:03 GMT -6
If (when) a private school(s) sues the LHSAA for discrimination do you think they have a case? I'm sure they have a case, but something of this nature generally hinges on two issues...and again let me reiterate that this is only one man's opinion and I have not seen the actual constitution.
The first issue is was the constitution legally ratified? If it can be proved that the by laws were approved under false pretenses or improper protocol, then they it will be ruled null and void and in theory, never existed. It is my understanding that this is the current issue at hand.
The other issue is the wording of the by laws, of which there is always room for interpretation.
So for a judge to rule that the split is illegal, he or she would have to first, rule the constitutional process as conducted according to procedure, then second rule that the letter of the law stated that the LHSAA could not exclude private schools if a vote said so.
From a legal point of view, Private schools are facing an up hill climb.
For the record, I am a huge fan of the old system and despise the current split.
In a discrimination case does seperate but equal still apply?
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2016 17:23:53 GMT -6
I'm sure they have a case, but something of this nature generally hinges on two issues...and again let me reiterate that this is only one man's opinion and I have not seen the actual constitution.
The first issue is was the constitution legally ratified? If it can be proved that the by laws were approved under false pretenses or improper protocol, then they it will be ruled null and void and in theory, never existed. It is my understanding that this is the current issue at hand.
The other issue is the wording of the by laws, of which there is always room for interpretation.
So for a judge to rule that the split is illegal, he or she would have to first, rule the constitutional process as conducted according to procedure, then second rule that the letter of the law stated that the LHSAA could not exclude private schools if a vote said so.
From a legal point of view, Private schools are facing an up hill climb.
For the record, I am a huge fan of the old system and despise the current split.
In a discrimination case does seperate but equal still apply? So one thing that I can assure all of you of is that "seperate, but equal" is illegal anyway you slice it. See Brown v Board and the Civil Rights act of 64...but to say this is a discriminatory case would be challenging.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 28, 2016 14:30:32 GMT -6
In a discrimination case does seperate but equal still apply? So one thing that I can assure all of you of is that "seperate, but equal" is illegal anyway you slice it. See Brown v Board and the Civil Rights act of 64...but to say this is a discriminatory case would be challenging. I don't think it would ever be challenged as a discrimination case. More of a denial of member rights and failure to meet contractual requirements in a civil matter. You have a majority claiming that there is an unfair advantage for private schools so they must be removed from the championship. Yet, these private schools, being members in good standing are being denied, specifically the children, the chance to participate in the only sanctioned championship, according to the LHSAA Constitution, which is solely based on classification. While the LHSAA has setup Divisions in other sports, those divisions have been the only classification used to crown a champion in that said sport, there is no precedent other than this, one classification one championship. The creation of a "separate but Equal" championship has no standing in any article of the (LHSAA) constitution and is why they still have privates play in the same districts. READ the constitution. Private (the aggrieved) schools by LHSAA bylaws and constitution are good standing members of the association, but are denied the opportunity by the majority to play for their 'classification' championships. They pay the same dues, have all the same rules by LHSAA standard, yet do not get the same reward as setup by YEARS of precedent. The argument of an unfair advantage has no standing because the LHSAA has no say in who goes to any school public or private, it can only make rules based upon what exists the established attendance zones, which all schools even private schools recognize. (Set by precedent) For the LHSAA to declare any student going to a private school ineligible but eligible at the local public schools would show favoritism and be another violation of its fair play clause. I have run this through with a sitting justice who agrees that a case could be made and won that the LHSAA has violated its contract with EVERY Private school that is a member and wrongfully denied its members access to said championships. With no doubt. Now will the private schools move to a class action suit against the LHSAA, the Public School Systems and Board of Education? Deep pockets, run deep, run long.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2016 14:48:23 GMT -6
A buddy of mine in BR told me that a huge firm prepared a case against the LHSAA for a Private (non Catholic) school. They dissected the bylaws, constitution, etc and supposedly had an open and shut case. They did all this pro bono and were glad to do so. Kenny Henderson pleaded with them and asked to hold off and assured them positive change would happen (same plea and promise he gave to the legislature) the school has a new headmaster now and does not want to be the one to bankrupt the LHSAA. I'm wondering if any school will ever bring them to court?
|
|
|
Post by kbanes on Jul 28, 2016 20:30:54 GMT -6
Waht was going to be the focus of the action?
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2016 20:43:31 GMT -6
Waht was going to be the focus of the action? My guess would be to sue the LHSAA and deem the split unconstitutional. I didn't read it, I was only told about it.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 29, 2016 14:26:55 GMT -6
Waht was going to be the focus of the action? My guess would be to sue the LHSAA and deem the split unconstitutional. I didn't read it, I was only told about it. Violation of its charter to its members. Essentially, private schools are no longer equal members of the LHSAA, breach of contract, charging fees under false pretense. the list goes on and on......
|
|