tvc184

CK got a deep pockets settlement so I guess you could call that a win. He did not beat the NFL in court and doubt that he could unless he had a recording of two or more owners claiming they were going to stop him from getting a contract. In the deep pocket theory, you sue someone that has a lot of money and make it more expensive for them to win than to settle. For example you could sue the NFL for $100 million for discrimination, then drag it out in court for a decade and cause $25 million in legal fees….. or they could make an offer of $10 million to just drop the whole issue. The NFL can spend $25 million to win and prove their case or they can spend $10 million to say, just go away. It is like, you have no case and we can beat you in court but to beat you will cost twice as much money. Now ask why insurance rates are so high…

This sends to be the premise of the federal lawsuit…. “The lawsuit alleges San Marcos Police chose not to provide the Biden bus with a police escort despite multiple requests, and even refused “to take reasonable steps to protect both Plaintiffs’ safety and their foundational democratic rights.” Maybe their lawyers haven’t read the Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. In CR, it wasn’t feelings or we were scared and you wouldn’t provide a safe space. In CR a woman had a restraining order against her estranged husband. A few weeks later he kidnapped them and the woman called the police and urged them to go find her husband because her children were in danger. The police refused and told her to wait until later to see if he brings them back. He did not bring them back but rather murdered all three children and brought them to the police station. There he died in a shootout with the police. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional guarantee of police protection. There might be statutory state laws that demand the police respond to a situation but there is nothing in federal law nor the United States Constitution guarantees protection. So let’s see, the murder of three children with the police refusing to look for them is not unconstitutional but having feelings hurt is?

According to the article, he made $40 million being akin to a slave. He was able to come and go anywhere he wanted and could afford to buy just about anything he wanted….. but they made sure he was the right guy beforehand. AND…. it was all voluntary. He was not forced to play football in high school, he could’ve turned down a scholarship for college, he could’ve turned down millions for the NFL and walked away to do something else non-slave like. I wonder if any slaves from the mid-1800s would consider trading places with him. Yes, I assume according to him, everything is slavery. If you go for a routine job interview, they are probably trying to determine who is best just like the NFL. So I guess technically he is correct. Almost everything we do can in some way be compared to slavery. Well, at least with a couple of big exceptions…. it is all voluntary and compensated. I don’t think it is true but it seems that CK has a skewed view of what slavery was.

I was just reading on the Facebook page, he apparently still has a feeding tube but is starting to eat regular food. Yesterday they brought him food from Floyd’s and think he will be off of the feeding tube soon.

Technically the school could be within their authority but it is a very narrow exception. The Supreme Court has ruled that’s such speech how to create a “substantial disruption” in classes. Way back in the mid-1960s, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines School District in a 7-2 decision that wearing black arm bands in class in protest of the Vietnam war was protected speech Under the First Amendment. Interestingly a similar case came up in front of the Supreme Court as this Buna case just four months ago. If I remember the case, a cheerleader was on their JV squad and tried out for the varsity squad. She did not make the squad and she made an off campus and off school time post (I will clean up the language) something like… screw school, screw cheerleading, screw everything. In response the school district kicked her off at the JV squad. She sued school district and in their defense they stated that she called a substantial disruption in classes. As evidence they brought testimony that a couple of classes discussed her for a few minutes. The Supreme Court in and 8-1 decision stated that discussing the cheerleader for a few minutes and in some classes does not constitute a substantial disruption of the school. Like in most cases they don’t define what that is. Would that require riots at the school? Many students walking out of class in protest? I don’t know because issues such as this are on a case by case basis. The Supreme Court gives guidance for the lower courts to follow. Sometimes they give very distinct answers, which are called Bright Line Rules, which must be followed but those are extremely rare. This is not one of those cases. So for Buna ISD to be able to take any kind of action at all, they need to be able to document a “substantial disruption” in school and having some students or parents not liking it does not even come close to feeling that description, in my opinion. The very essence of the first amendment is making comments that people don’t like. Otherwise it would not be needed.

It does seem like they put an eight-year-old child in charge of a candy store.

That’s why I put my closing statement about understanding the comparison. I suspect that if it was a bunch of Muslim cheerleaders and they had scripture from the Quran, the support would not be as much, if at all.

It kind of is but… I think the cheerleaders are on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling that has been made already. While seeing football players going through a sign does not convert you to being a Christian or any other religion, a person not wearing a mask might cause you to a serious illness or death. While the premise might be the same that if it’s OK to break one law, it’s OK to break another, what is the effect on other people? Under Texas law, a person who trespasses but does not cause an injury is a criminal and so is the person that commits a murder during an arm robbery. There is hardly a comparison however. It is kind of a strawman argument. I do get the comparison though. If you were one of the people they complain about a mask order around the governor’s directive yet support some cheerleaders that appear to have violated the United States Supreme Court decision, seems hypocritical. It is kind of like the people that are for the right to have an abortion at any stage yet against the death penalty. It is kind of illogic.

KWP 35-22

On 3-9 for KWP runs and Nederland holds. Timeout by Nederland at 2:13 Nederland ball at Nederland 31 after block in the back

KWP 35-22, timeout Nederland at 2:24

Scramble for 1-10 on 4-10 play. Intercepted by KWP in endzone

4:39

KWP fg attempt is….. Good KWP 35-22

Break out the basketballs and baseballs.

After two sacks, Nederland punts to KWP 38

Touchback 1-10 on 25 for Nederland

End of 3, KWP 32-22

Touchdown pass

Kickoff returned to 43 after Nederland has to kick off from their own 25 after unsportsmanlike after conversion.

2 point conversion, KWP 25-22

Touchdown keeper

Kickoff returned by Nederland to own 31

Missed 2 point try. KWP 25-14

KWP punts the Nederland 2 Nederland punts to KWP 35 KWP runs for touchdown