trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 31,554 
|
Post by trojansc on Nov 26, 2024 12:55:05 GMT -5
So, do we all agree Colorado State is taking this MWC championship? The Malaya Jones and Kennedy Stanford combo with Yoshimoto in the back (and her serving) will be hard to beat. No way am I agree'ing to that. The favorite? Sure. But it's not a heavy favorite. I'm not counting anyone out. I don't see why San Diego State can't win it all at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by yep on Nov 26, 2024 13:09:09 GMT -5
So, do we all agree Colorado State is taking this MWC championship? The Malaya Jones and Kennedy Stanford combo with Yoshimoto in the back (and her serving) will be hard to beat. No way am I agree'ing to that. The favorite? Sure. But it's not a heavy favorite. I'm not counting anyone out. I don't see why San Diego State can't win it all at this point. I was just trying to redirect the conversation back to the actual tournament. haha It worked for now. |
|
|
|
Post by tn65 on Nov 26, 2024 13:55:17 GMT -5
That's the point for the court, too. The judge's decision pointed out that the rule hasn't changed since 2022, so it's far to late to be screaming about it now. Didn't read the opinion; don't know the facts, but speaking generally a number of factors could affect or alter the timing of litigation, including finding a law firm willing to take the case on a reduced or free-fee basis. Also, I'm unclear, from the little I've read, when the trans status of the player in question becoome known. Could one sue to contest the rule, without an identifiable instance in which it was being applied and applied in a way that personally affects the plaintiffs? I don't know the answer to that, either, but wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "no." In fact, I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "no." There are "standing" rules that limit who can sue and when. They should have known at least since April when the Reduxx article came out. They could have filed their lawsuit before the regular season started. As for the cost, there are organizations like ADF who are willing to provide the legal service for little or no cost. They have been trying to recruit additional plaintiffs to the Riley Gaines lawsuit, so they probably offered their service pro bono. |
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Nov 27, 2024 6:13:43 GMT -5
Didn't read the opinion; don't know the facts, but speaking generally a number of factors could affect or alter the timing of litigation, including finding a law firm willing to take the case on a reduced or free-fee basis. Also, I'm unclear, from the little I've read, when the trans status of the player in question becoome known. Could one sue to contest the rule, without an identifiable instance in which it was being applied and applied in a way that personally affects the plaintiffs? I don't know the answer to that, either, but wouldn't be surprised if the answer was "no." In fact, I'd be surprised if the answer wasn't "no." There are "standing" rules that limit who can sue and when. They should have known at least since April when the Reduxx article came out. They could have filed their lawsuit before the regular season started. As for the cost, there are organizations like ADF who are willing to provide the legal service for little or no cost. They have been trying to recruit additional plaintiffs to the Riley Gaines lawsuit, so they probably offered their service pro bono. "Pro bono" means for the public good. This lawsuit is the opposite of that. Contra bono. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Nov 27, 2024 6:44:56 GMT -5
They should have known at least since April when the Reduxx article came out. They could have filed their lawsuit before the regular season started. As for the cost, there are organizations like ADF who are willing to provide the legal service for little or no cost. They have been trying to recruit additional plaintiffs to the Riley Gaines lawsuit, so they probably offered their service pro bono. "Pro bono" means for the public good. This lawsuit is the opposite of that. Contra bono. That's a peculiar take. |
|
|
|
Post by maigrey on Nov 27, 2024 8:59:03 GMT -5
They should have known at least since April when the Reduxx article came out. They could have filed their lawsuit before the regular season started. As for the cost, there are organizations like ADF who are willing to provide the legal service for little or no cost. They have been trying to recruit additional plaintiffs to the Riley Gaines lawsuit, so they probably offered their service pro bono. "Pro bono" means for the public good. This lawsuit is the opposite of that. Contra bono. Except in the legal world it means 'for free', really. |
|
