In today’s nomination hearing, Judge John Roberts adopted JFK’s statement
about his Catholicism and his role as a public servant: “I do not speak for my
church on public matters–and the church does not speak for me.” He went
further, when later pressed by Sen. Feinstein, asserting:
“My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in my
judging. In judging, I look to the law, I do not look to the Bible,
or other religious source.”
disappointed Pope Benedict XVI and a lot of conservative (“serious“) Catholics.
He certainly disappointed Steve Bainbridge:
“As those who followed my extended debate with David Giacalone
know, I believe that Kennedy’s famous Houston speech was a cop-out
and inconsistent with clear Catholic teaching on the civic responsibilities
of Catholics. This is not to say, of course, that a Catholic judge inevitably
must vote to strike down Roe. As I have emphasized repeatedly, this issue
presents complex moral and judicial ethical issues. I’m just disappointed
(but not especially surprised, I guess, given the politicization of the confir-
mation process) that Roberts so blithely opted for the easy way out.”
Being an advocate of conserving (my) energy whenever possible, I’m disappointed
that I spent so much time (and took such grief) writing on a topic that Judge Roberts
so effortlessly made moot. afterthought (Sept. 14, 2005): I wrote a bit too soon and
too flippantly yesterday. I have not been seeking any particular answer from Judge
Roberts, but have instead been writing to show why the Senate and the public deserve
to know what Roberts sees as the relationship of his devout Catholicism to his judging.
He told us, and although I might have asked the question differently or followed-up, the
issue appears to have be adequately addressed.
I agree with those who say that Roberts has left himself a little wiggle
room on whether stare decisis conclusively precludes the Court deciding
to overturn or significantly limit Roe v. Wade. Every lawyer knows that
giving a rule consideration and deference is far different than giving it the
final say.
update (7PM): Prof. Bainbridge has a good post this
evening at Mirror of Justice explaining why he believes the JFK Houston
Speech conflicts with Church teaching.
If, like myself, you spent a lot of the day listening to the Roberts’ hearing,
you definitely deserve this change of pace (although perhaps not of topic).
Here are four senryu for Lee Gurga:
parading the stallion–
all eyes on
his dangling member
his side of it
her side of it
winter silence
my dream
awakens me . . .
I wake you
class reunion–
with my old girlfriend
her girlfriend
from Fresh Scent
September 13, 2005
Roberts Disappoints Bainbridge (and Benedict)
Comments Off on Roberts Disappoints Bainbridge (and Benedict)
antitrusters question NCAA purchase of NIT
In a letter, yesterday, to the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice,
and New York Attorney General Spitzer, the American Antitrust Institute called for
investigation of the private antitrust settlement in which the NCAA and the NIT agreed
to merge their tournaments. In its settlement with Metropolitan Intercollegiate Basketball
Association, NCAA agrees to purchase the National Invitational Tournament for $40.5
million, plus $16 million to settle the suit, which is pending in the the SDNY federal
district court. ESPN.com, “NCAA buys tournaments, ends NIT litigation,” by Andy
Katz, Aug. 17, 2005; Sports Law Blog has a case summary and an analysis of
the settlement; Skip Sauer at Sports Economist has also looked at the case and
the settlement).
In calling for an antitrust merger investigation by one or more of the agencies,
the AAI letter, signed by its Vice President Diana Moss, explains, in part:
Even a cursory look into the proposed settlement raises serious questions
about the health of competition in post-merger markets. For example, the
NCAA would be in a position, post-merger, to impose its “mandatory participation”
rule for both the NIT and its own tournaments. This would erect an insurmountable
barrier to entry into post-season play. In enhancing their market power in acquiring
tournament teams, the NCAA would in turn enjoy significantly more market power
in sales of broadcast rights, sponsorships, concessions, and event tickets. The
proposed deal thus packs a double punch for consumers. Schools would have fewer
options and face potentially non-competitive terms for post-season tournament play.
And sponsors and consumers of the tournament games would potentially face higher
prices.
Based on information that is publicly available, AAI believes that there is a significant
probability that the effect of the proposed merger may be to significantly lessen (or
eliminate entirely) competition between organizers in acquiring men’s Division I basketball
teams for participation in post-season tournaments. NCAA President Myles Brand could
not have said it more succinctly when he noted in regard to the August 16th settlement:
“We’ve now unified post-season basketball.”
The merger would spell an end to the NIT which, once upon a time, was an equally-matched
and vigorous competitor to the NCAA. But a series of actions by the NCAA has diminished
that competition, to the detriment of consumers. The proposed consolidation would further
hurt consumers and preclude the emergence of a stronger rivalry between the NCAA and NIT
(and with respect to new upstarts). An antitrust investigation of the merger could focus on
such key issues as market definition (which was controversial in the MIBA v. NCAA litigation);
the significant potential for unilateral exercise of market power; and the entry barriers created
by the merger. Moreover, the inquiry should extend to the likely effects of the merger on pre
season tournaments by giving the NCAA the “green light” to enact a pending rule that
would replace independent tournaments with events the NCAA can control.
(Sept. 13, 2005)
Of course, few readers of this weblog are old enough to remember the time when the NIT “was
an equally-matched and vigorous competitor to the NCAA.”
update (Sept. 14, 2005): See our follow-up, not just NIT-picking.
the bounce
of raindrops
on the basketball
Frogpond XXIII:3 (2000)
boy shooting baskets–
deep snow piled
all around him
from Fresh Scent
p.s. Hey, haijin, how about some basketball
haiku and senryu?
update (7 PM): Our Haiku Hotdog Ed Markowski has
already provided us with a benchful of haiku and senryu.
See this Comment. Here are three of ’em:
city moon
my basketball flattened
by a shard of glass
stiff march wind
the sound
of an airball
game winning shot
the big man
palms my head
“BBallHoop”
