I am not a constitutional scholar....

[vhdawg]

...nor have I paid close attention to this Ted Cruz college sports bill or its chances of passing, but can someone explain to me how Congress could impose membership alignments and restrictions on the conferences and force shared media rights without getting blown out of the water immediately by the Supreme Court as soon as it's signed into law?

Help me understand how any of this I keep seeing Ross Dellinger tweet about could be even remotely legal.

 

[ReverseCowbell]

...nor have I paid close attention to this Ted Cruz college sports bill or its chances of passing, but can someone explain to me how Congress could impose membership alignments and restrictions on the conferences and force shared media rights without getting blown out of the water immediately by the Supreme Court as soon as it's signed into law?

Help me understand how any of this I keep seeing Ross Dellinger tweet about could be even remotely legal.

When I would ask questions like that as a kid my parents would say “it just can, now go to bed.”

 

[L4Dawg]

The fact that Congess felt the need to get involved says it all.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

It’s been a very long time since any member of Congress has been concerned about what they are constitutionally allowed to do.

 

[Podgy]

We have a Congress? Since when?

 

[QuaoarsKing]

...nor have I paid close attention to this Ted Cruz college sports bill or its chances of passing, but can someone explain to me how Congress could impose membership alignments and restrictions on the conferences and force shared media rights without getting blown out of the water immediately by the Supreme Court as soon as it's signed into law?

Help me understand how any of this I keep seeing Ross Dellinger tweet about could be even remotely legal.

Supreme Court decisions are not and have never been decided by any kind of high-minded principles about the appropriate role of government, and are instead decided by the personal and political views of the justices. Whether this bill (should it even pass, which seems unlikely) can go into effect will depend on how the justices personally feel about the state of college football.

Given that none of them went to an FBS school for undergrad (and only Barrett did for law school, at Notre Dame), I doubt any of them care.

 

[vhdawg]

Whether this bill (should it even pass, which seems unlikely) can go into effect will depend on how the justices personally feel about the state of college football.

Well that's part of my question, because all nine justices agreed that the restrictions the NCAA was laying upon student-athletes were obviously not okay, and I can't imagine that they'll feel that differently if it's Congress levying the restrictions rather than an organization formed by the schools themselves.

 

[paindonthurt]

Supreme Court decisions are not and have never been decided by any kind of high-minded principles about the appropriate role of government, and are instead decided by the personal and political views of the justices. Whether this bill (should it even pass, which seems unlikely) can go into effect will depend on how the justices personally feel about the state of college football.

Given that none of them went to an FBS school for undergrad (and only Barrett did for law school, at Notre Dame), I doubt any of them care.

 

[mstateglfr]

"It's because that's why."

 

[johnson86-1]

Well that's part of my question, because all nine justices agreed that the restrictions the NCAA was laying upon student-athletes were obviously not okay, and I can't imagine that they'll feel that differently if it's Congress levying the restrictions rather than an organization formed by the schools themselves.

Nine justices said a particular restriction on educational benefits went against antitrust rules. That was in a case where the ncaa bixarrely took the position that the market was college athletics, rather than sports in general. I guess they were scared of weakening their argument that scholarship athletes are not employees.
One justice went on a rant and really addressed issues not before them.

if congress amends antitrust laws to allow certain ncaa rules, there would have to be a different basis for the Supreme Court to invalidate them.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

...nor have I paid close attention to this Ted Cruz college sports bill or its chances of passing, but can someone explain to me how Congress could impose membership alignments and restrictions on the conferences and force shared media rights without getting blown out of the water immediately by the Supreme Court as soon as it's signed into law?

Help me understand how any of this I keep seeing Ross Dellinger tweet about could be even remotely legal.

Congress has extremely broad authority to "regulate interstate commerce", and the definition of "interstate commerce" was broadened substantially throughout the 20th Century.

To the extent the Act would render existing contracts illegal, it could be an unconstitutional taking of property. Future contracts would have to comply, though.

As to your other question, the Supreme Court ruled the NCAA's treatment of student athletes violated anti-trust laws, i.e., laws passed by Congress. This Act, if passed, grants an exemption to the Anti Trust laws as long as these new rules are followed, so the earlier Supreme Court rulings would no longer apply.

I haven't read the entire Act. Its possible certain provisions have constitutional issues beyond regulation of interstate commerce. Is there anything you are especially curious about?

 

[vhdawg]

Is there anything you are especially curious about?

No, it just all sounds like overreaching BS that shouldn't be possible in our system.

 

[msualohadog]

With all the gerrymandering going on, I'd say congress thinks the conference alignment looks perfect.**

 

[Hotdiggydawg]

Is there anything you are especially curious about?

Yes, should Congress tell us how many teams should be in the playoffs and how many are allowed per conference while they are at it?

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

My guess is, because almost all of those schools receive Federal Funds in some form or fashion, they have leverage.

They should put a team from 6 Pack on this project, and it would All be straightened out. Quickly.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Yes, should Congress tell us how many teams should be in the playoffs and how many are allowed per conference while they are at it?

I dont think it "should", but the OP was questioning whether Congress legally can. Conference affiliations and media licensing rights directly relate to market control and, which is an anti trust issue that is probably well within Congressional power to regulate.

 

[3407Dewey]

Supreme Court decisions are not and have never been decided by any kind of high-minded principles about the appropriate role of government, and are instead decided by the personal and political views of the justices. Whether this bill (should it even pass, which seems unlikely) can go into effect will depend on how the justices personally feel about the state of college football.

Given that none of them went to an FBS school for undergrad (and only Barrett did for law school, at Notre Dame), I doubt any of them care.

Supreme Court decisions are based on precedent and the Constitution. The personal views of justices may work around the margins, but that’s not the basis for court decisions.

 

[StillTbonewannabe]

Technically, college football right now is one of the purest forms of free market economics. Players are getting whatever the market deems they are worth. Capitalism at its finest. Now people want socialism I guess. We don't mind monopolies in everything else but apparently sports is too far.

I don't like the model and I think if college athletics doesn't do something to even out the competitive balance then it will be a slow death.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

Technically, college football right now is one of the purest forms of free market economics. Players are getting whatever the market deems they are worth. Capitalism at its finest. Now people want socialism I guess. We don't mind monopolies in everything else but apparently sports is too far.

I don't like the model and I think if college athletics doesn't do something to even out the competitive balance then it will be a slow death.

Where did you get the idea that "we dont mind monopolies in everything else?" Have you heard of our anti-trust laws?

There is nothing wrong with being more successful than your competitors in business. But when entities are so successful that they are able to unfairly stifle competition from the smaller players, thats bad for consumers and is where "capitalism at its finest" breaks down.

In the college sports context, the larger schools and conferences have the most money, and can use that advantage to buy the best players, making their products more attractive to consumers, and making it harder and harder for the smaller players to compete.

And by "compete" I mean economic competition, not athletic competition so much, although those two types of competition go together in sports.

Ultimately that concentration of power will be bad for consumers...meaning both the fans and the athletes.

OTOH, this may all just be about protecting billionaires from themselves.

 

[johnson86-1]

Supreme Court decisions are not and have never been decided by any kind of high-minded principles about the appropriate role of government, and are instead decided by the personal and political views of the justices. Whether this bill (should it even pass, which seems unlikely) can go into effect will depend on how the justices personally feel about the state of college football.

Given that none of them went to an FBS school for undergrad (and only Barrett did for law school, at Notre Dame), I doubt any of them care.

Supreme Court decisions are based on precedent and the Constitution. The personal views of justices may work around the margins, but that’s not the basis for court decisions.

It really depends on the topic and the justice. Sotomayor and Jackson are pretty much up there acting as super legislators for anything but the most mundane process questions that don't involve any issue they care about . Kagan will mostly apply the law until it gets to something she really cares about or something she thinks is really important to democrats. Gorsuch applies the law usually but does some weird ****. Bostock is going to be an embarrassment for him. Just indefensible opinion based on his claimed judicial philosophy. It would be more defensible to take the the straight up judicial supremacy approach of "we think society has evolved so we're changing the law". Roberts is less about his personal beliefs and more that he thinks reading the political tea leaves is how to protect the court's legitimacy, but of course the way to defend against charges of being political is to stop being political, not putting your finger in the air and trying to predict how people will react to a particular opinion.

They all have their faults at time, but basically you could have a court of 12 Kagans, 12 Roberts or 12 of whatever justice and the court would mostly function ok. A court full of Kagan's would be terrible in my opinion, but it would at least be able to maintain some legitimacy. The only exceptions are you could not have 12 Sotomayors or 12 Jacksons. You might not be able to have 12 Roberts, as every decision of note would be subject to intense lobbying campaigns as he's shown he's susceptible to that kind of thing.

But definitely it is closer to 3407Dewey's view of things than Quaoars's view. It's really a relatively limited number of topics that get political. You would get a lot of 9-0 opinions even on sharply divided courts, although the presence of Jackson and Sotomayor has probably reduced that significantly.

 

[8dog]

Technically, college football right now is one of the purest forms of free market economics. Players are getting whatever the market deems they are worth. Capitalism at its finest. Now people want socialism I guess. We don't mind monopolies in everything else but apparently sports is too far.

I don't like the model and I think if college athletics doesn't do something to even out the competitive balance then it will be a slow death.

The issue isn’t that they are earning what they are worth. The issue everyone has is they are getting what they are worth and calling it something else and then running to the courts when they don’t get their way. If that’s free market it stinks

 

[horshack.sixpack]

...nor have I paid close attention to this Ted Cruz college sports bill or its chances of passing, but can someone explain to me how Congress could impose membership alignments and restrictions on the conferences and force shared media rights without getting blown out of the water immediately by the Supreme Court as soon as it's signed into law?

Help me understand how any of this I keep seeing Ross Dellinger tweet about could be even remotely legal.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Technically, college football right now is one of the purest forms of free market economics. Players are getting whatever the market deems they are worth. Capitalism at its finest. Now people want socialism I guess. We don't mind monopolies in everything else but apparently sports is too far.

I don't like the model and I think if college athletics doesn't do something to even out the competitive balance then it will be a slow death.

Honestly, the most broken thing rn is that it is tied to education. Just form a minor league and eliminate CFB and move on.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

It really depends on the topic and the justice. Sotomayor and Jackson are pretty much up there acting as super legislators for anything but the most mundane process questions that don't involve any issue they care about . Kagan will mostly apply the law until it gets to something she really cares about or something she thinks is really important to democrats. Gorsuch applies the law usually but does some weird ****. Bostock is going to be an embarrassment for him. Just indefensible opinion based on his claimed judicial philosophy. It would be more defensible to take the the straight up judicial supremacy approach of "we think society has evolved so we're changing the law". Roberts is less about his personal beliefs and more that he thinks reading the political tea leaves is how to protect the court's legitimacy, but of course the way to defend against charges of being political is to stop being political, not putting your finger in the air and trying to predict how people will react to a particular opinion.

They all have their faults at time, but basically you could have a court of 12 Kagans, 12 Roberts or 12 of whatever justice and the court would mostly function ok. A court full of Kagan's would be terrible in my opinion, but it would at least be able to maintain some legitimacy. The only exceptions are you could not have 12 Sotomayors or 12 Jacksons. You might not be able to have 12 Roberts, as every decision of note would be subject to intense lobbying campaigns as he's shown he's susceptible to that kind of thing.

But definitely it is closer to 3407Dewey's view of things than Quaoars's view. It's really a relatively limited number of topics that get political. You would get a lot of 9-0 opinions even on sharply divided courts, although the presence of Jackson and Sotomayor has probably reduced that significantly.

How convenient that the two liberal justices are the political ones, the two more moderate ones are OK but sometimes political, and the remaining conservatives are just following high-minded principles...

I agree that there are a lot of mundane decisions that don't get super political, but on something controversial and high profile, every justice just rules their personal philosophical opinion every time. I can't think of a single example of a prominent case in the last few decades where the result didn't match the justices' personal biases.

 

[Colonel Angus.sixpack]

Honestly, the most broken thing rn is that it is tied to education. Just form a minor league and eliminate CFB and move on.

That’s the first class express ticket for it to go straight to the Supreme Court. No school is going to take that laying down and they shouldn’t.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

It really depends on the topic and the justice. Sotomayor and Jackson are pretty much up there acting as super legislators for anything but the most mundane process questions that don't involve any issue they care about . Kagan will mostly apply the law until it gets to something she really cares about or something she thinks is really important to democrats. Gorsuch applies the law usually but does some weird ****. Bostock is going to be an embarrassment for him. Just indefensible opinion based on his claimed judicial philosophy. It would be more defensible to take the the straight up judicial supremacy approach of "we think society has evolved so we're changing the law". Roberts is less about his personal beliefs and more that he thinks reading the political tea leaves is how to protect the court's legitimacy, but of course the way to defend against charges of being political is to stop being political, not putting your finger in the air and trying to predict how people will react to a particular opinion.

They all have their faults at time, but basically you could have a court of 12 Kagans, 12 Roberts or 12 of whatever justice and the court would mostly function ok. A court full of Kagan's would be terrible in my opinion, but it would at least be able to maintain some legitimacy. The only exceptions are you could not have 12 Sotomayors or 12 Jacksons. You might not be able to have 12 Roberts, as every decision of note would be subject to intense lobbying campaigns as he's shown he's susceptible to that kind of thing.

But definitely it is closer to 3407Dewey's view of things than Quaoars's view. It's really a relatively limited number of topics that get political. You would get a lot of 9-0 opinions even on sharply divided courts, although the presence of Jackson and Sotomayor has probably reduced that significantly.

I dont like to "both sides" a political topic, but Thomas and Alito seem to stretch legal interpretation to match their own political beliefs as well.

I really hate the Court is viewed as so political now. I dont know if thats a reflection of the Justices, or just a society that views everything through a hyper-partisan political lens these days.

To me, we have always had liberal and conservative Justices, but that was more a definition of how they viewed the Constitution, our Government, and the Laws, and not their allegiance to a political faction.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

That’s the first class express ticket for it to go straight to the Supreme Court. No school is going to take that laying down and they shouldn’t.

??? If a minor league were formed that consumed and paid all the talent that is currently on CFB rosters who is there to sue. I was not suggesting that CFB be eliminated by order, just that it would be eliminated as it stands today. Perhaps played at a lower level by less talented players. But education should be the focus of educational institutions. $$$$ ensures that it is not, and has not been for quite a while. We are just reaping what we've sown.

 

[johnson86-1]

How convenient that the two liberal justices are the political ones, the two more moderate ones are OK but sometimes political, and the remaining conservatives are just following high-minded principles...

I agree that there are a lot of mundane decisions that don't get super political, but on something controversial and high profile, every justice just rules their personal philosophical opinion every time. I can't think of a single example of a prominent case in the last few decades where the result didn't match the justices' personal biases.

Yes, that's what "they all have their faults at times" means. All is just two.

There is a difference between applying a judicial philosophy and just applying your political preferences. The reason some high profile cases seem political is because they are political for the left. There was no justification for Roe v Wade other than the justices thought the law should be changed. That is even the way liberal law professors taught it for years. That is not necessarily because the left or right is better. The left was the party that mostly wanted to change the law, so they appointed judges willing to change the law.

But probably more so than strictly political cases are cases where there is really not a textual answer. The incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the 14th amendment can't be found. There is no right answer as to what amendments were incorporated against the states. There is no right answer as to what it means to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That's why you end up with these judge made tests like intermediate scrutiny for sex, but strict scrutiny for race. The court legislates on those questions because they weren't really left a choice.

 

[johnson86-1]

I dont like to "both sides" a political topic, but Thomas and Alito seem to stretch legal interpretation to match their own political beliefs as well.

I really hate the Court is viewed as so political now. I dont know if thats a reflection of the Justices, or just a society that views everything through a hyper-partisan political lens these days.

To me, we have always had liberal and conservative Justices, but that was more a definition of how they viewed the Constitution, our Government, and the Laws, and not their allegiance to a political faction.

I'm sure there are cases where their judgment is influenced. I wasn't excluding them. But they are nothing like Jackson or Sotomayor.

But Thomas is probably the most fundamentally sound and consistent justice. Alito is up there. Alito is going to be more deferential in law enforcement cases. He's going to be the most protective of religious liberty along with Thomas. That's going to influence close calls. It's hard to easily identify cases where Thomas and Alito really let their personal preferences get in the way because the cases they are criticized the most for are ones where the law was relatively straight forward (e.g., Dobbs; there really, really wasn't anything in the constitution protecting abortion; it was just a state issue until the court decided to legislate on it originally in Roe).

 

[Right_Field_Heckler]

Don't worry, there are plenty of constitutional experts here. Most earned their credentials from the esteemed University of Google, with a concentration in home-school jurisprudence.***

 

[patdog]

Technically, college football right now is one of the purest forms of free market economics. Players are getting whatever the market deems they are worth. Capitalism at its finest. Now people want socialism I guess. We don't mind monopolies in everything else but apparently sports is too far.

I don't like the model and I think if college athletics doesn't do something to even out the competitive balance then it will be a slow death.

The problem is pure free market economies mag sound great but without some rules and boundaries they don’t work at all.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

It’s been a very long time since any member of Congress has been concerned about what they are constitutionally allowed to do.

or required to do

 

[aTotal360]

Blind leading the blind.

 

[Dawgzilla2]

I'm sure there are cases where their judgment is influenced. I wasn't excluding them. But they are nothing like Jackson or Sotomayor.

But Thomas is probably the most fundamentally sound and consistent justice. Alito is up there. Alito is going to be more deferential in law enforcement cases. He's going to be the most protective of religious liberty along with Thomas. That's going to influence close calls. It's hard to easily identify cases where Thomas and Alito really let their personal preferences get in the way because the cases they are criticized the most for are ones where the law was relatively straight forward (e.g., Dobbs; there really, really wasn't anything in the constitution protecting abortion; it was just a state issue until the court decided to legislate on it originally in Roe).

Agree to disagree, especially on Thomas. But the thread has been derailed enough.

 

[johnson86-1]

Agree to disagree, especially on Thomas. But the thread has been derailed enough.

So what case(s) do you think he ignored originalism to get to his preferred policy position?

 

[Dawgzilla2]

So what case(s) do you think he ignored originalism to get to his preferred policy position?

Just read the post you are responding to.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

I'm sure there are cases where their judgment is influenced. I wasn't excluding them. But they are nothing like Jackson or Sotomayor.

But Thomas is probably the most fundamentally sound and consistent justice. Alito is up there. Alito is going to be more deferential in law enforcement cases. He's going to be the most protective of religious liberty along with Thomas. That's going to influence close calls. It's hard to easily identify cases where Thomas and Alito really let their personal preferences get in the way because the cases they are criticized the most for are ones where the law was relatively straight forward (e.g., Dobbs; there really, really wasn't anything in the constitution protecting abortion; it was just a state issue until the court decided to legislate on it originally in Roe).

 

[JackReacherDawg]

The "Substantive Due Process" Double Standard: In his concurring opinion in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, Thomas argued that the Supreme Court should reconsider all of its "substantive due process precedents". This includes landmark rulings that protect privacy rights for contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), same-sex relationships (Lawrence v. Texas), and marriage equality (Obergefell v. Hodges). Detractors view this as hypocritical because his rationale could threaten the legal precedent (Loving v. Virginia) that protects his own interracial marriage, which he notably omitted from his Dobbs opinion list. Georgetown University +3

So what case(s) do you think he ignored originalism to get to his preferred policy position?

Critics frequently argue that Justice Clarence Thomas’s originalist jurisprudence contains hypocrisies, particularly in affirmative action cases, where he allegedly discards original intent in favor of modern conservative policy preferences. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The primary examples of this criticism include:

• Affirmative Action: Thomas has authored opinions declaring the Constitution "colorblind" to invalidate diversity programs, such as in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions ruling. Legal historians argue this ignores the original intent of the 14th Amendment framers, who crafted the amendment precisely to pass race-conscious laws to aid newly freed slaves. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Congressional Power and Native Rights: In Haaland v. Brackeen (2023), Thomas argued that federal protections for Native American adoptees under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were unconstitutional. Critics and fellow Justices contended this ignored historical frameworks of tribal sovereignty and federal power deeply rooted in the Constitution's original text. [1, 2]
• The Second Amendment: In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), Thomas's majority opinion required courts to determine if modern gun regulations are consistent with historical tradition. Critics point out that Thomas and the conservative majority ignored historical gun laws from the founding era that did not align with a sweeping right to carry arms in public. [1, 2]
• Stare Decisis vs. Stacking Precedent: Thomas often criticizes stare decisis (respecting precedent) by claiming courts must overrule cases that conflict with original text. However, critics argue he inconsistently applies this standard, aggressively targeting long-standing precedents he dislikes while leaving other problematic historical rulings untouched. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[OG Goat Holder]

The only real thing they need to get a handle on is the amateur part. How many years you have, and when you lose that amateur status.

Rev share isn't going away, outside NIL isn't going away, transferring isn't going away, tampering isn't going away.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

...nor have I paid close attention to this Ted Cruz college sports bill or its chances of passing, but can someone explain to me how Congress could impose membership alignments and restrictions on the conferences and force shared media rights without getting blown out of the water immediately by the Supreme Court as soon as it's signed into law?

Help me understand how any of this I keep seeing Ross Dellinger tweet about could be even remotely legal.

For those of us paying attention, this SC has dropped any pretense of deciding things based on the law, constitution, or precedent.

They're gonna do what they want, and have clerks to write up an excuse into an opinion. If they contradict it a few weeks later, they dont care.

To an extent this has always somewhat been the case, but all the guardrails have been dropped. Nothing matters anymore.