This title is legally misleading
Good Thursday morning everyone! On this day in 1953, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Major League Baseball was a game and not a business- therefore avoiding application of anti-trust laws to the organization. The case arose from New York Yankees outfielder, George Toolson, refusing to accept a demotion from the franchise’s Triple-A to Double-A affiliate. Toolson filed suit- alleging that baseball violated federal anti-trust laws through monopolizing the professional arena in which he could display his skill. Rather than determining that baseball did not violate federal law, the Court ruled that because baseball is not a business, it is not subject to anti-trust provisions of the U.S. Code. Of course this ignores the realities of the negotiating and marketing aspects behind the game even in the 1950s. Additionally, the ruling is inconsistent with other analogous case law- where the Court found that professional football and basketball are both subject to anti-trust provisions. That said, baseball holds a special place in jurisprudential history- the Toolson case came 31 years after the court found that Major League Baseball did not involve interstate commerce and was therefore outside of Congressional regulation. So happy anniversary MLB and thank you for not freezing out Tom Ricketts as apparently is well within your organizational rights.
If baseball is not a business, why does this man have a job?
On to the news-
1) In an effort to prohibit gay marriage, the Texas legislature passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as follows: (1) Marriage in Texas is between one man and one woman; (2) Texas or any political subdivision of the state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage. The problem is that the second clause seems to ban all marriage in the state of Texas. In essence, the second and final definitional portion of Texas marriage law fails to limit its scope to same sex unions- thereby applying universally to the state population. Given the broad language, Democratic candidate for state Attorney General, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, believes, “you do not need a fancy law degree to see the problem here.” Well, I have a fancy law degree, so I will illuminate the technical issues present. The United States Constitution prohibits undue restrictions on marriage as well as overly broad laws. For Constitutional purposes, a law is too broad when it is open to two or more reasonable interpretations- thereby preventing a rational reader from recognizing what conduct is prohibited. This reading is limited to the text and does not take into account extraneous sources of information- i.e. we know what Texas wanted to do here, but the Courts are not in the business of correcting badly written work. In this case, the Texas constitutional amendment fails to specify what kind of relationship it will not classify as a marriage; rendering unclear whether the law applies to heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, or any other variety in existence. Additionally, as this overly broad characterization deals with the constitutionally protected institution of marriage, the odds are that it will not withstand a legal attack. Pragmatically speaking, the legalese is irrelevant. Even if any Court overturned this law, the Texas legislature would quickly revise the law to limit the applicability of section two to homosexual couples. So while the practicalities will render the legal challenge largely irrelevant, this serves as a case study of the amazingly stupid things some people will do out of fear that allowing homosexual couples to marry will turn their own wedding band into a Tolkein-esque burning ring of fire.
Fact- this does not happen to wedding bands. Sorry to burst your bubble Texas
2) For the second time in a week, Fox News was caught utilizing old video footage to further the organization’s preconceived media agenda. Last week, Sean Hannity admitted that he ran footage of a large republican rally taped in September as a “live feed” of the republican anti-health care rally on Capitol Hill. Of course the fact that the crowd at the November demonstration was roughly 20 times smaller than the September rally and the November event took place under sunny skies (contrasted to the cloudy September day) did nothing to deter Hannity. That is, until he got caught. Yesterday, Fox ran video they claimed was of the “massive crowds awaiting Sarah Palin at her book signings,” that turned out to be rehashed 2008 campaign footage. The obvious desire at Fox is to empower their base viewers (read- ruby red conservatives) with the belief that America has unapolagetically adopted the far right political stance. Clearly polling numbers and common sense indicate that is not the case. However, I fail to see why Fox would risk falsifying a news report on its favorite subject when video evidence of modest crowds actually exists. Sarah Palin has a huge following (so did Saddam Hussein- see I can do what Fox does) but exaggerating that fact directly undercuts Fox’s hope to expand the conservative base.
The "liberal elitist sexist" media does not have to make Palin look like an idiot- her words do just fine
3) Yesterday was a pretty slow sports day, which provides ample space for my thoughts on one of the biggest Formula One driver moves in recent memory. Only two days after Mercedes purchased the World Champion Brawn GP team, lead driver Jenson Button announced his decision to depart- joining 2008 champion Lewis Hamilton at McLaren. The union marks the first pairing of two British F1 champs since Graham Hill and Jim Clark in 1968- providing an understandable level of euphoria in Great Britain. However, there is no universal belief that this relationship will have a direct connection to even results. In an interview with London’s Daily Mail, three time World Champion Jackie Stewart stated his feeling that Lewis Hamilton will “eat Button for lunch.” I tend to agree with Sir Jackie’s logic. Lewis Hamilton entered Formula One paired with the most talented driver in the field and proceeded to take the two-time defending champion to task from day one. This season, Lewis overcame inferior equipment to beat Button easily over the second half of the calendar. Jenson Button, on the other hand, has never had an elite talent as a teammate and can credit all of his race wins to vastly superior equipment and dumb luck (the 2006 triumph). In ten seasons, Button has yet to show an ability to develop the car or overcome the mental pressure from a teammate. In only three years, Hamilton has accomplished all of that. I expect an exciting 2010 season, but seriously doubt Jenson Button will have much to celebrate next winter.
Expect to see more smiles from the guy on the left next year
4) As of yesterday, the 2010 FIFA World Cup field is officially set (told you it was a slow news day), with the most controversial entrant being France. In the final playoff game for a European qualifying spot, French striker Thierry Henry used his hand to knock down a pass into the box- setting up the equalizing goal against a gritty Irish national team. In World Cup qualifying scores are aggregated between matches and given France’s 1-0 win in Dublin, a tie was enough to secure a spot in South Africa. The obvious problem is that the referees should have whistled play dead after the handball and given Ireland a free kick- negating the scoring chance. While that would not have guaranteed a win, at least the Irish would have a shot to play their way in via a shootout. Instead, the 2006 World Cup runners-up advance in a controversial manner and will have many questions to answer over the next eight months.
Have a good Thursday everyone!
