Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[theDoctorisIn]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

Morals clauses are discretionary. There's no requirement that they be equally enforced.

 

[The Rabbi]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

If they go through with it it will mean that any time an owner says something that might offend someone, even in private, they can be forcibly stripped of their ownership. Oppose gay marriage? You're out. Call Obama incompetent? You're out. Oppose legalized marijuana or immigration reform? You're out. Doesnt matter if you're taped sitting at your dinner table having a family meal.

That's why the owners will work out some deal to save face. No one will be party to a contract like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

Morals clauses are discretionary. There's no requirement that they be equally enforced.

That itself will become cause in a suit. Arbitrary and capricious, I believe is the phrase.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To demonstrate the league is well within their rights.
I believe the document (the by laws) is available. I saw reference to it in an article.

Why should the league demonstrate that to you? The NBA doesn't give a shit whether or not Armchair Attorneys on message boards understand what their "rights" are.

They only have to demonstrate it to the courts, if Sterling fights it.

You understand this is entirely about public opinion and shaping it, right? I would bet most owners probably didnt have a problem with what Sterling said but could never admit to it.
So if the NBA wanted to demonstrate its rightness it would have specified the clauses Sterling violated etc. Unless they had a total incompetent like you running things.

You're right - it is entirely about public opinion.

The part you're confused about is what the "public opinion" is. The "public opinion" is already in the NBA's favor - they don't need to prove it, unless it goes to court.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

Morals clauses are discretionary. There's no requirement that they be equally enforced.

That itself will become cause in a suit. Arbitrary and capricious, I believe is the phrase.

No, it won't. There's plenty of precedent.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

If they go through with it it will mean that any time an owner says something that might offend someone, even in private, they can be forcibly stripped of their ownership. Oppose gay marriage? You're out. Call Obama incompetent? You're out. Oppose legalized marijuana or immigration reform? You're out. Doesnt matter if you're taped sitting at your dinner table having a family meal.

That's why the owners will work out some deal to save face. No one will be party to a contract like that.

The rules are simple. You love the fans, you love the town, you love the players, you love the team, you love the NBA, and you hope to make it to the finals this year. The rest you keep to Goddamned yourself, and you make a ton of money for doing so. Got it?

 

[candycorn]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

It has to be two thirds of the owners voting in favor for that to happen I believe while I do have real concerns over people being punished over things they say in private being recorded and then made public and used against them there are standards and rules of conduct that anyone buying a sports team agree to when purchasing a team if you break them these are the possible consequences and every potential owner knows that up front. I have no sympathy for Sterling but add him with CEO from Mozilla who got forced out for making a donation to a pro traditional marriage group in 2006 it starts to set a disturbing trend.

Actually its 75%

That "Secret" NBA Constitution Is Now Online

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

Morals clauses are discretionary. There's no requirement that they be equally enforced.

And that's why it's shaky ground to base a case on. It will be pretty easy to prove the NBA's only true morals are making money.

It won't go to court anyway, it may cost the new owners and the NBA a couple billion but it will never go to court.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

If they go through with it it will mean that any time an owner says something that might offend someone, even in private, they can be forcibly stripped of their ownership. Oppose gay marriage? You're out. Call Obama incompetent? You're out. Oppose legalized marijuana or immigration reform? You're out. Doesnt matter if you're taped sitting at your dinner table having a family meal.

That's why the owners will work out some deal to save face. No one will be party to a contract like that.

The rules are simple. You love the fans, you love the town, you love the players, you love the team, you love the NBA, and you hope to make it to the finals this year. The rest you keep to Goddamned yourself, and you make a ton of money for doing so. Got it?

Keeping to yourself...you mean like in your own home with your girlfriend?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And that's why it's shaky ground to base a case on. It will be pretty easy to prove the NBA's only true morals are making money.

Idiot, that is their moral. They aren't the bloody Salvation Army.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If they go through with it it will mean that any time an owner says something that might offend someone, even in private, they can be forcibly stripped of their ownership. Oppose gay marriage? You're out. Call Obama incompetent? You're out. Oppose legalized marijuana or immigration reform? You're out. Doesnt matter if you're taped sitting at your dinner table having a family meal.

That's why the owners will work out some deal to save face. No one will be party to a contract like that.

The rules are simple. You love the fans, you love the town, you love the players, you love the team, you love the NBA, and you hope to make it to the finals this year. The rest you keep to Goddamned yourself, and you make a ton of money for doing so. Got it?

Keeping to yourself...you mean like in your own home with your girlfriend?

I mean like in your own mind, or when you're sure you aren't, or can't, be recorded. The NBA is more like the Mafia than McDonalds, and I wouldn't fuck with McDonads if I were you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The morals clause is a pretty unstable thing for the NBA to place their hopes on. There's contracts, there's laws and then there's the cost balance of enforcing it.

The NBA's moral clause is shaky if this goes to court because all that has to be brought up is all of the past players that also signed the same clause in their contracts to be brought up as examples of inaction by the NBA. You have to have morals in order for a morals clause to hold up. The NBA has proven in the past they don't really give a shit about morals.

The only way the NBA gets rid of Sterling with as little kick back as possible is money. And that price will be set by Sterling. All that's left to do is find that amount and this goes away.

Morals clauses are discretionary. There's no requirement that they be equally enforced.

And that's why it's shaky ground to base a case on. It will be pretty easy to prove the NBA's only true morals are making money.

It won't go to court anyway, it may cost the new owners and the NBA a couple billion but it will never go to court.

Morals clauses aren't about being moral, they're about making money. Corporations don't have "morals", they exist only to make money, and for no other reasons.

They exist as a way to escape a contract when the person signed is reflecting badly on the brand.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The rules are simple. You love the fans, you love the town, you love the players, you love the team, you love the NBA, and you hope to make it to the finals this year. The rest you keep to Goddamned yourself, and you make a ton of money for doing so. Got it?

Keeping to yourself...you mean like in your own home with your girlfriend?

I mean like in your own mind, or when you're sure you aren't, or can't, be recorded. The NBA is more like the Mafia than McDonalds, and I wouldn't fuck with McDonads if I were you.

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Keeping to yourself...you mean like in your own home with your girlfriend?

I mean like in your own mind, or when you're sure you aren't, or can't, be recorded. The NBA is more like the Mafia than McDonalds, and I wouldn't fuck with McDonads if I were you.

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

It already is my little moron. There's no First Amendment in capitalism. Got it now?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Keeping to yourself...you mean like in your own home with your girlfriend?

I mean like in your own mind, or when you're sure you aren't, or can't, be recorded. The NBA is more like the Mafia than McDonalds, and I wouldn't fuck with McDonads if I were you.

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

The First Amendment has NEVER applied to anything other than the Government. There has never been a protection for "free speech" in the private sector.

It's amazing to me how the people who constantly yell about the Constitution never really seem to understand what it means.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Morals clauses are discretionary. There's no requirement that they be equally enforced.

And that's why it's shaky ground to base a case on. It will be pretty easy to prove the NBA's only true morals are making money.

It won't go to court anyway, it may cost the new owners and the NBA a couple billion but it will never go to court.

Morals clauses aren't about being moral, they're about making money. Corporations don't have "morals", they exist only to make money, and for no other reasons.

They exist as a way to escape a contract when the person signed is reflecting badly on the brand.

Which is exactly why they are so legally shaky to enforce.

In the end this will go one of two ways.

1- Sterling gets paid an ungodly sum that makes it better to walk away than try to hang on.

2- The NBA sits every loud mouth down and tells them to shut up about it, they make public apology for Sterling and hope this all goes away by next season.

I just had a funny thought. What if the Clippers win the NBA championship? Now that could get interesting.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And that's why it's shaky ground to base a case on. It will be pretty easy to prove the NBA's only true morals are making money.

It won't go to court anyway, it may cost the new owners and the NBA a couple billion but it will never go to court.

Morals clauses aren't about being moral, they're about making money. Corporations don't have "morals", they exist only to make money, and for no other reasons.

They exist as a way to escape a contract when the person signed is reflecting badly on the brand.

Which is exactly why they are so legally shaky to enforce.

In the end this will go one of two ways.

1- Sterling gets paid an ungodly sum that makes it better to walk away than try to hang on.

2- The NBA sits every loud mouth down and tells them to shut up about it, they make public apology for Sterling and hope this all goes away by next season.

I just had a funny thought. What if the Clippers win the NBA championship? Now that could get interesting.

They're not "legally shaky" to enforce at all.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I mean like in your own mind, or when you're sure you aren't, or can't, be recorded. The NBA is more like the Mafia than McDonalds, and I wouldn't fuck with McDonads if I were you.

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

The First Amendment has NEVER applied to anything other than the Government. There has never been a protection for "free speech" in the private sector.

It's amazing to me how the people who constantly yell about the Constitution never really seem to understand what it means.

Not restricted to government only. Never has been.

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I mean like in your own mind, or when you're sure you aren't, or can't, be recorded. The NBA is more like the Mafia than McDonalds, and I wouldn't fuck with McDonads if I were you.

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

It already is my little moron. There's no First Amendment in capitalism. Got it now?

And apparently no right to privacy or due process either. Lining in Russia is so fun!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Morals clauses aren't about being moral, they're about making money. Corporations don't have "morals", they exist only to make money, and for no other reasons.

They exist as a way to escape a contract when the person signed is reflecting badly on the brand.

Which is exactly why they are so legally shaky to enforce.

In the end this will go one of two ways.

1- Sterling gets paid an ungodly sum that makes it better to walk away than try to hang on.

2- The NBA sits every loud mouth down and tells them to shut up about it, they make public apology for Sterling and hope this all goes away by next season.

I just had a funny thought. What if the Clippers win the NBA championship? Now that could get interesting.

They're not "legally shaky" to enforce at all.

Typical right-wing ignorance. They hear the word "owner" and believe, wrongly, that this means you can do whatever you want with something? Their ignorance never ceases to amaze me, even after all this time.