Here is why Coyle is delaying a decision.

[Bob_Loblaw]

Yes. Absolutely. I'm not saying that would have been the right and just thing to do, but would have at least shown that they had a position on the issue. Instead, they have complicated any logical resolution to this mess. The lack of leadership has been staggering. And it's going to be interesting to see how they can now take any decisive action without looking like bigger fools.

It really has been. It is what happens when you are purely reactionary.

I have no sympathy for Kaler and the University in all of this, but they should allow a third party arbiter to decide the findings of the investigations. However, that admits that their system is faulty and biased. The EoAA would make a huge stink about it and the U would be dragged over the coals in the papers. They have backed themselves into a corner. Kaler could not shut up and he either has the worst advisers or no advisers at all.

 

[vagopher]

It is absolutely clear cut.

The only situations where it is not clear cut are with private actors (Boy Scouts, etc.).

Are you really arguing that Lawrence v Texas is not absolute precedent? Seriously? You think the U of MN could pass a rule where it makes certain consensual activities crimes? Seriously?

To quote Lawrence v. Texas, the case that set precedent (and will absolutely NOT be overturned and even if you think it will, it was not the law at the time): "Public distaste and moral condemnation are not sufficient to justify regulation." Read it again.

As far as your last point, it absolutely does NOT matter. I have no idea why some of you armchair attorneys over the past couple of days keep bringing this up. Was it in a Tom Powers column or that piece from Soucheray?

Your RIGHT is to be treated fairly (Equal Protection Clause). For example, you do not have a Constitutional right to swim. However, a municipal pool that does not allow lesbians would be Unconstitutional. It isn't about the "right to swim". That argument is putrid. Stop repeating it.

Well you're right. I am an arm chair lawyer these days, but before retiring, I practiced law for 40 years. Lawrence v Texas struck down sodomy laws in Texas and 13 other states. But it did not address the question of a school's right to impose standards of conduct as a condition of participating in a privileged activity. Yes, I agree, if the U were to tolerate consensual heterosexual sex but punished homosexual sex, that would be a problem. There may be law to the contrary, but I am not aware of any that precludes a school from disciplining a student athlete for bringing discredit on the school and its sports programs. And in this instance, its not just a matter of group sex, its the involvement of a 17 year old recruit in that sex.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Well you're right. I am an arm chair lawyer these days, but before retiring, I practiced law for 40 years. Lawrence v Texas struck down sodomy laws in Texas and 13 other states. But it did not address the question of a school's right to impose standards of conduct as a condition of participating in a privileged activity. Yes, I agree, if the U were to tolerate consensual heterosexual sex but punished homosexual sex, that would be a problem. There may be law to the contrary, but I am not aware of any that precludes a school from disciplining a student athlete for bringing discredit on the school and its sports programs. And in this instance, its not just a matter of group sex, its the involvement of a 17 year old recruit in that sex.

If this is your interpretation of the law, I'm sorry, I don't believe you're a lawyer. You surely don't remember your Con Law days.

"Imposing standards" is just another way of saying regulating. A public school cannot regulate consensual sexual activity. It is pretty cut and dry. You are the first attorney that I've ever "met" that has ever argued the contrary. Again, it does not matter if the activity is a privilege or a right (see my swimming pool example). You cannot treat people differently based on sexual orientation or preference.

As far "discredit to school", you honestly think that would not get struck down as Unconstitutional if it were enforced to regulate consensual sexual activity? I'm sorry but I can't believe anyone who is/was an attorney would make such a claim. Could you imagine the enormous amount of things that could be brought into "discredit to a school". You'd also put the university in a bizarre situation of saying that some consensual sexual activities bring discredit to the school and others do not.

As far as the 17 year old recruit. . .it's an interesting question but it is completely unrelated to the original point. They might be able to be kicked out for giving him alcohol, but do you really think the U wants to go down that road? There is only 1 person who had sex with the 17 year old recruit, I doubt that they would be wanting to kick her out.

 

[diehard]

Well Bob. maybe they don't want to, but they should. Expel her. You need no more reason than sex with a 17 year old HS student. BTW, just my opinion. Never been a lawyer, never will be.

 

[Dano564]

Well Bob. maybe they don't want to, but they should. Expel her. You need no more reason than sex with a 17 year old HS student. BTW, just my opinion. Never been a lawyer, never will be.

Only on Gopherhole do you have someone legitimately ask to expel the victim on a 10 on one case of sexaul assault.

Stay classy.

 

[scools12]

Well Bob. maybe they don't want to, but they should. Expel her. You need no more reason than sex with a 17 year old HS student. BTW, just my opinion. Never been a lawyer, never will be.

You assume she knew the age of the recruit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iceland12]

Only on Gopherhole do you have someone legitimately ask to expel the victim on a 10 on one case of sexaul assault.

Stay classy.

Face the Facts! You little Sconnie troll you. Now longer trying to be rational but back in full little dick form and all over the place too! Must be worried or working on getting banned no matter who you really are...

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/member.php?6066-Face-The-Facts

 

[MaxyJR1]

I truly think the delay is that no decision has been made. Coyle wants things to calm down and sit down with the coach. If decision comes next week I'm fine with it. Claeys said on Mike Max show he was going to spend time with family through the New Years weekend.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[46Gophers]

I truly think the delay is that no decision has been made. Coyle wants things to calm down and sit down with the coach. If decision comes next week I'm fine with it. Claeys said on Mike Max show he was going to spend time with family through the New Years weekend.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you for sharing relevant information on the thread's topic. Others please take the off topic crap to one of the fifty other threads somewhat related.

 

[vagopher]

If this is your interpretation of the law, I'm sorry, I don't believe you're a lawyer. You surely don't remember your Con Law days.

"Imposing standards" is just another way of saying regulating. A public school cannot regulate consensual sexual activity. It is pretty cut and dry. You are the first attorney that I've ever "met" that has ever argued the contrary. Again, it does not matter if the activity is a privilege or a right (see my swimming pool example). You cannot treat people differently based on sexual orientation or preference.

As far "discredit to school", you honestly think that would not get struck down as Unconstitutional if it were enforced to regulate consensual sexual activity? I'm sorry but I can't believe anyone who is/was an attorney would make such a claim. Could you imagine the enormous amount of things that could be brought into "discredit to a school". You'd also put the university in a bizarre situation of saying that some consensual sexual activities bring discredit to the school and others do not.

As far as the 17 year old recruit. . .it's an interesting question but it is completely unrelated to the original point. They might be able to be kicked out for giving him alcohol, but do you really think the U wants to go down that road? There is only 1 person who had sex with the 17 year old recruit, I doubt that they would be wanting to kick her out.

Well I am a lawyer. I graduated law review from UCLA, I practiced before the Supreme Court while at the Justice Department, and spent 30 years as a partner at one of the country's largest law firms. I was a charter listee in "The Best Lawyers in America" and I had a Martendale Hubble Av rating. And I stand by my analysis.

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

I truly think the delay is that no decision has been made. Coyle wants things to calm down and sit down with the coach. If decision comes next week I'm fine with it. Claeys said on Mike Max show he was going to spend time with family through the New Years weekend.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Or the buyout numbers decrease on the 1st of the year, so the U is trying to save a few bucks.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

Well I am a lawyer. I graduated law review from UCLA, I practiced before the Supreme Court while at the Justice Department, and spent 30 years as a partner at one of the country's largest law firms. I was a charter listee in "The Best Lawyers in America" and I had a Martendale Hubble Av rating. And I stand by my analysis.

The only response that Loblaw can give you is that you are lying. Unless, he doesn't respond at all. Even though there are one or two dozen lawyers who have posted in GopherHole about this case during the last several weeks he wants everyone to think he knows more than anyone else. If that is true, God help us all.

 

[Vandy]

The only response that Loblaw can give you is that you are lying. Unless, he doesn't respond at all. Even though there are one or two dozen lawyers who have posted in GopherHole about this case during the last several weeks he wants everyone to think he knows more than anyone else. If that is true, God help us all.

Why? Because he doesn't agree with YOU?
Plenty haven't agreed with your tripe on this board.

 

[akgopher]

Coyle is in Idaho. If the decision has been made to move on, it wouldn't surprise me if he's trying to gauge the possibility of returning with one more passenger than he had on his arrival flight. All of the speculation is on Fleck and not the guy who he's already hired once. Harsin could double his salary if he got on the plane with Coyle.

 

[46Gophers]

Coyle is in Idaho. If the decision had been made to move on, it wouldn't surprise me if he's trying to gauge the possibility of returning with one more passenger than he had on his arrival flight. All of the speculation is on Fleck and not the guy who he's already hired once. Harsin could double his salary if he got on the plane with Coyle.

That is a possibility if he decided to move on from Claeys.

 

[#2Gopher]

That is a possibility if he decided to move on from Claeys.

I wouldn't doubt that Coyle called Claeys and told him that he is our coach but needs to sit down with him after the holidays. Coach has been recruiting like he will still be around.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Well I am a lawyer. I graduated law review from UCLA, I practiced before the Supreme Court while at the Justice Department, and spent 30 years as a partner at one of the country's largest law firms. I was a charter listee in "The Best Lawyers in America" and I had a Martendale Hubble Av rating. And I stand by my analysis.

I've never heard of an attorney say that they graduated "law review". You graduated from UCLA and you were in law review. But I guess it's possible that someone would word it like that.

Your timeline doesn't make any sense whatsoever either. You claim to have been practicing 40 years and been a partner for 30 years. So in those 10 years with the Justice Department, you were able to practice before the Supreme Court and then transition into the private sector and become a partner in just those 10 years? Really? I'd be willing to make a pretty large wager that a large portion of this story is BS. What was your case about in front of the Supreme Court?

As to the actual issue, I guess if you're an attorney, you're an attorney. I have never met an attorney who had less of an understanding of Con Law. I've certainly never met one who practiced in front of the Supreme Court who lacked such an understanding of the Constitution. Now, there are TONS of areas for debate in interpreting different elements of Con Law, but your argument completely lacks any understanding of how the Constitution works. It honestly comes off like a dumb person googling the issue. So if you're an attorney and you seriously practiced in front of the Supreme Court, I hope you've hit your head since then, or your clients were absolutely robbed.

So, explain to me how my interpretation is incorrect. I don't think you can. They aren't really debatable stances.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The only response that Loblaw can give you is that you are lying. Unless, he doesn't respond at all. Even though there are one or two dozen lawyers who have posted in GopherHole about this case during the last several weeks he wants everyone to think he knows more than anyone else. If that is true, God help us all.

I certainly know more than you and him. He has a putrid understanding of Constitutional Law and you're an absolute fascist creep.

I responded. If he's a lawyer, wow. He has a horrible understanding of the Constitution. I'd love to hear a substantive discussion of why what I posted was incorrect. You can chime in if you want, but that's just the equivalent of my dog barking at the TV, he doesn't know what's going on.

It's really not that important if he's a lawyer or not, his stance on the Constitution is wrong. It's really that decided. I would love to hear a legal argument that the state can regulate consensual sexual activities. His stance on "being on the football team is a privilege" is so off base I can't even begin to dissect. Think the pool example. . . you have no Constitutional right to swim, however, a municipal pool cannot have regulations that violate the Constitution. The fact that being on the football team is privilege is wholly irrelevant and anyone who would point to that, doesn't understand the Constitution. It's really a simple concept.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

You assume she knew the age of the recruit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As far as statutory rape, it wouldn't matter. You can meet a girl at a bar and have her show you her ID (that says she is 21) and take her home and commit statutory rape. It's a strict liability crime (you don't need to have the knowledge that you're doing the illegal act).

That said, the age of consent in MN is 16. She did not commit statutory rape.

All of that said, my point in saying that she would have to be punished if the players are kicked out of school for the sexual act involving the recruit was to point out that it leads to extremely difficult and borderline absurd remifications. She is the only one who slept with a 17 year old and she is the only one who slept with more than 1 person. Even if it was Constitutional, it would seem extremely difficult to write a rule that kicks people out of school for group sex that wouldn't kick her out of school (which I am completely against).

 

[Gogogopher]

So a christian college could not kick student out for being gay? A college could not get a waiver to allow them to exclude gay people?

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...stian-colleges-title-ix-exemptions-under-fire

 

[GopherBulldog]

As far as statutory rape, it wouldn't matter. You can meet a girl at a bar and have her show you her ID (that says she is 21) and take her home and commit statutory rape. It's a strict liability crime (you don't need to have the knowledge that you're doing the illegal act).

That said, the age of consent in MN is 16. She did not commit statutory rape.

All of that said, my point in saying that she would have to be punished if the players are kicked out of school for the sexual act involving the recruit was to point out that it leads to extremely difficult and borderline absurd remifications. She is the only one who slept with a 17 year old and she is the only one who slept with more than 1 person. Even if it was Constitutional, it would seem extremely difficult to write a rule that kicks people out of school for group sex that wouldn't kick her out of school (which I am completely against).

Yes. Which is one of the really sad things about the situation the University has created. The lack of leadership and decisive action by the administration has not only caused a ton of ambiguity and unnecessary public scrutiny of the accused, but has also exposed the alleged victim to possible punishment. Just so poorly handled, it's absurd.

 

[alchemy2u]

The only response that Loblaw can give you is that you are lying. Unless, he doesn't respond at all. Even though there are one or two dozen lawyers who have posted in GopherHole about this case during the last several weeks he wants everyone to think he knows more than anyone else. If that is true, God help us all.

Bob is very high on his own ability to know everything and is not afraid to tell everyone. It has been my experience that those who think they know the most, typically are just full of BS. The more you know the more you realize that you know very little.

The football team can dismiss a player for not cutting his hair or wearing the proper pregame attire. But, no, they could never dismiss a player for conduct unbecoming of the team. No it is unconstitutional!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[vagopher]

The only response that Loblaw can give you is that you are lying. Unless, he doesn't respond at all. Even though there are one or two dozen lawyers who have posted in GopherHole about this case during the last several weeks he wants everyone to think he knows more than anyone else. If that is true, God help us all.

Thanks.

 

[vagopher]

I certainly know more than you and him. He has a putrid understanding of Constitutional Law and you're an absolute fascist creep.

I responded. If he's a lawyer, wow. He has a horrible understanding of the Constitution. I'd love to hear a substantive discussion of why what I posted was incorrect. You can chime in if you want, but that's just the equivalent of my dog barking at the TV, he doesn't know what's going on.

It's really not that important if he's a lawyer or not, his stance on the Constitution is wrong. It's really that decided. I would love to hear a legal argument that the state can regulate consensual sexual activities. His stance on "being on the football team is a privilege" is so off base I can't even begin to dissect. Think the pool example. . . you have no Constitutional right to swim, however, a municipal pool cannot have regulations that violate the Constitution. The fact that being on the football team is privilege is wholly irrelevant and anyone who would point to that, doesn't understand the Constitution. It's really a simple concept.

Bob you seem to believe that the sodomy cases create an absolute right to have sex under any all circumstances, so long as it's consensual, that can't be abridged even if one is a member of a team where that membership is a privilege, and not a right. You cite Lawrence v. Texas, which relies upon the judicially created "Right of Privacy". That right is rooted in an 1890 law review article co-authored by Louis Brandeis, who subsequently became a distinguished member of the Supreme Court. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy. Contrast that right with the First Amendment, which includes the right to free speech. That right is preferred freedom, which requires a compelling government interest to override. But even so, it is not absolute. Despite the preferred status of free speech, coaches have banned players from using Twitter and barred them from speaking with the press. Is it your opinion that those restriction on speech violate the Constitution? If not, how do you square that with your position on sexual activity under the Right of Privacy? You have yet to address the impact on your claim to an absolute right to sexual activity of the fact that team membership is a privilege and not a right.

 

[Deleted_User]

I've never heard of an attorney say that they graduated "law review". You graduated from UCLA and you were in law review. But I guess it's possible that someone would word it like that.

Your timeline doesn't make any sense whatsoever either. You claim to have been practicing 40 years and been a partner for 30 years. So in those 10 years with the Justice Department, you were able to practice before the Supreme Court and then transition into the private sector and become a partner in just those 10 years? Really? I'd be willing to make a pretty large wager that a large portion of this story is BS. What was your case about in front of the Supreme Court?

As to the actual issue, I guess if you're an attorney, you're an attorney. I have never met an attorney who had less of an understanding of Con Law. I've certainly never met one who practiced in front of the Supreme Court who lacked such an understanding of the Constitution. Now, there are TONS of areas for debate in interpreting different elements of Con Law, but your argument completely lacks any understanding of how the Constitution works. It honestly comes off like a dumb person googling the issue. So if you're an attorney and you seriously practiced in front of the Supreme Court, I hope you've hit your head since then, or your clients were absolutely robbed.

So, explain to me how my interpretation is incorrect. I don't think you can. They aren't really debatable stances.

Nm. I made an unfair statement and need to withdraw it for the sake of the honor of the person I made it against, namely Bob. My apologies Bob. I simply disagree with you and have nothing else to say about it.