Hicktown, USA, and my recent knowledge gain
I think Spokane just cemented itself as a Hicktown. It has nothing to do with fiscal status, or the amount of cars parked in lawns. It has to do with this article: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=14824
Read it, the blog will wait, really only the first four paragraphs are necessary. I'll let it sink in a minute, again, the blog will wait for you, you read it at your own discretion anyway.
This dude plead guilty and was sentenced to 18 years, whatever, happens all the time, really it happens in non-hickish cities more often. The part that makes it hickish is that he got married minutes before being sentenced. He was wearing his freaking prison uniform. And to make it even more hick-tastic, the judge who sentenced him is the same judge that performed the marriage. That doesn't happen in cities with more than one judge, does it? How can it, it's freaking ridiculous, this isn't Ritzville.
Moving on to my knowledge gain, it regards my beloved sport of baseball. Baseball is exempt from antitrust laws. Professional sports in general kind of are, but baseball especially. It goes way back to the collapse of the Federal League in 1915. The remaining parts were essentially scrapped off and sold away, owners allowed to buy other teams, players divvied up, etc. One guy wasn't allowed to buy a team, he got pissed, he sued. In 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League the supreme court decided that baseball wasn't governed by the Sherman Antitrust Act because baseball wasn't interstate commerce. You see, it wasn't interstate commerce because they played in one state at a time. The travel was incidental, I think it's silly, but I can kind of understand it. TV wasn't around yet, and radio signals didn't go far, so most of the commerce was pretty much in a single state.
Then, in 1952 in Toolson v. New York Yankees the court upheld their ruling. And they upheld it primarily because of their previous ruling. See, the court decided that because they had declared baseball exempt, and congress had failed to change the Sherman Antitrust Act, they must have specifically meant for baseball to be exempt. It was action via inaction.
Then in 1972 a man named Curt Flood was traded from the Cardinal to the Phillies. He didn't want to play for the Phillies, so he refused to be traded, and sued. In Flood v. Kuhn the court again ruled in favor of baseball, in this case Bowie Kuhn, the commissioner of baseball, who oddly enough, was a lawyer in the Toolson v. New York Yankees case for baseball. He thought about again representing baseball in this new case, but in the end decided not to do so. Anyway, the court specifically said baseball was indeed interstate commerce, and by all reasonable logic should fall within the governance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but again, because they had already ruled on it, and congress hadn't changed the act, it meant baseball was supposed to be exempt. The court decided again that it was action via inaction. It was a closer vote this time around 5-3, one justice recused himself from the trial because he owned some of Anhueser-Busch, which owned the Cardinals. One justice who had voted in favor of the Yankees in the Toolson case changed his mind and voted for Flood in the last case, expressing his remorse for his decision the first time around.
The Supreme Court is always crazy. I knew baseball was exempt, but I was unaware the specific reasoning, and honestly, I'm still not sure of the reasoning, I understand the technicalities behind it, but the reasoning is Chris Bridges.
Read it, the blog will wait, really only the first four paragraphs are necessary. I'll let it sink in a minute, again, the blog will wait for you, you read it at your own discretion anyway.
This dude plead guilty and was sentenced to 18 years, whatever, happens all the time, really it happens in non-hickish cities more often. The part that makes it hickish is that he got married minutes before being sentenced. He was wearing his freaking prison uniform. And to make it even more hick-tastic, the judge who sentenced him is the same judge that performed the marriage. That doesn't happen in cities with more than one judge, does it? How can it, it's freaking ridiculous, this isn't Ritzville.
Moving on to my knowledge gain, it regards my beloved sport of baseball. Baseball is exempt from antitrust laws. Professional sports in general kind of are, but baseball especially. It goes way back to the collapse of the Federal League in 1915. The remaining parts were essentially scrapped off and sold away, owners allowed to buy other teams, players divvied up, etc. One guy wasn't allowed to buy a team, he got pissed, he sued. In 1922 in Federal Baseball Club v. National League the supreme court decided that baseball wasn't governed by the Sherman Antitrust Act because baseball wasn't interstate commerce. You see, it wasn't interstate commerce because they played in one state at a time. The travel was incidental, I think it's silly, but I can kind of understand it. TV wasn't around yet, and radio signals didn't go far, so most of the commerce was pretty much in a single state.
Then, in 1952 in Toolson v. New York Yankees the court upheld their ruling. And they upheld it primarily because of their previous ruling. See, the court decided that because they had declared baseball exempt, and congress had failed to change the Sherman Antitrust Act, they must have specifically meant for baseball to be exempt. It was action via inaction.
Then in 1972 a man named Curt Flood was traded from the Cardinal to the Phillies. He didn't want to play for the Phillies, so he refused to be traded, and sued. In Flood v. Kuhn the court again ruled in favor of baseball, in this case Bowie Kuhn, the commissioner of baseball, who oddly enough, was a lawyer in the Toolson v. New York Yankees case for baseball. He thought about again representing baseball in this new case, but in the end decided not to do so. Anyway, the court specifically said baseball was indeed interstate commerce, and by all reasonable logic should fall within the governance of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but again, because they had already ruled on it, and congress hadn't changed the act, it meant baseball was supposed to be exempt. The court decided again that it was action via inaction. It was a closer vote this time around 5-3, one justice recused himself from the trial because he owned some of Anhueser-Busch, which owned the Cardinals. One justice who had voted in favor of the Yankees in the Toolson case changed his mind and voted for Flood in the last case, expressing his remorse for his decision the first time around.
The Supreme Court is always crazy. I knew baseball was exempt, but I was unaware the specific reasoning, and honestly, I'm still not sure of the reasoning, I understand the technicalities behind it, but the reasoning is Chris Bridges.
posted by Sam at 6:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home