King Of The Trolls
I think the Supreme Court is immune to the usual harassment by the gay mafia, but I forgot the scorecard on how many sane justice there currently are.
How do you see this one going down? I read earlier that the justices were saying "they weren't sure they wanted to force the states into this issue because the climate is already changing by itself."
FTFYThat's old man conservative talk. Invoke states rights whenever you need to respect the judicial process.
Breyer swung back around when the schmuck on the other side started talking about child adoption and children. He really seemed torn over the whole thing.FWIW, even Breyer (if I ID'd his voice correctly on the audio) was peppering the petitioner with questions. It wasn't just the conservatives+Kennedy who seemed hesitant on this. Of course BaderGinsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan were all over it though.
At no time before the fight began did any defendant provide, release, or disclose any information that Pacquiao was injured or had been injured during training.
If Defendants had informed the Nevada State Athletic Commission of Pacquiao’s injury, that information would have then been disseminated to the public through numerous media outlets and channels, and available to Plaintiffs and all members of the putative class.
Unbeknownst to pay-per-view purchasers of the Fight, Pacquiao had injured his right shoulder during a sparring session on or about April 4, 2015 and had been evaluated and examined on and around April 6, 2015, including obtaining an MRI.
Unbeknownst to pay-per-view purchasers of the Fight, immediately prior to the Fight Pacquiao requested a shot in his right shoulder that was denied by the Nevada State Athletic Commission based, in whole or in part, on Pacquiao and Top Rank’s misrepresentation(s) that Pacquiao had not suffered any prior injury.
The facts that Pacquiao suffered an injury to his right shoulder during training and was suffering from that right shoulder injury immediately before and during the fight was only made public after the Fight had been fought and won by favorite, Mayweather.
The facts that Pacquiao suffered an injury to his right shoulder during training and was suffering from that right shoulder injury immediately before and during the fight was only made public after the Fight had been purchased and watched, via pay-per-view, by viewers throughout the United States.
Shortly after the Fight, Top Rank CEO, Robert Arum, reported that the injury was the same as the one that Los Angeles Laker Kobe Bryant suffered, a torn rotator cuff.
Following the Fight, Pacquiao estimated that his right shoulder was at 60% during the Fight.
Ha ha, law suit over fight of the century. Opinions???
Haven't read it all, but what damages do they claim they incurred? They didn't enjoy the fight as much as they otherwise would have and if they'd known, they wouldn't have paid for pay-per-view or something like that?
If so, then it's an impossible claim, as there's no way to know what the fight would have been like. Mayweather was the favourite in any case, and he won, and he's notorious for being a boring fighter who excels at defence so even had Pacquiao's shoulder been fine, the fight probably would have followed a similar pattern.
I don't think any judge will touch that. Immediately opens up any sporting event to damages if any team/player has an off day. Way too speculative.
These are good points.^^
I hadn't heard about the doctor's rec. But then that too is so prevalent - NFL players playing hurt in the playoffs, etc. I think it makes Paq a douche and greedy, but not necessarily liable. People paid money to see the two fight. They fought and Paq got owned. What if one of their spouses died and they weren't completely focused for the fight (Mayweather probably wouldn't care...) - it's just too far removed.
I don't think you can prove people were paying to see both fighters in the peak of physical condition, even though that's basically expected. You can't sue Denver for playing Manning hurt last season during the playoffs.
Fact. Is there some difference between this judicial coup and Bush vs. Gore?
California did. It was called Proposition 22. 61% of the voters answered correctly that marriage is an opposite sex thing. The court overthrew the will of the people in an undemocratic manner.If they wanted a vote they should have had one.
Well, there used to be a caveat about having a male husband and female wife too.I believe they put in a caveat about marrying multiple people.