Benny Baker
-
Posts
1,124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Benny Baker
-
-
Kristo grew up a Sioux fan, committed to UND at a young age, has relatives in Grand Forks. You could tell he wanted it more than anybody last Sunday. Hoping he's back for one more try.
-
If UND doesn't complete the transition, or if UND can't be a competitive program (like maybe because they can't host playoff games), then the Big Sky can and will kick UND out of the conference. If UND gets kicked out of the Big Sky Conference the football team will be eliminated within 3 to 5 years. Without a conference there aren't enough teams to play, there wouldn't be enough fans attending games and there wouldn't be enough money coming in to support the program. It will be just like Nebraska Omaha. It's too bad that you and the other nickname-at-all-cost people don't have the ability to understand the reality of the situation, or in the case of people like you, don't care enough about the program itself. You would rather destroy the program than lose the nickname.
Not if Al Carlson makes a law that says that "the University of North Dakota fighting sioux football team must compete in the Football Championship Subdivision each calendar season. And there is nothing that anybody can do to stop it."
-
They can still win championships - just don't wear the logo or use the name Sioux at ncaa portion of it all - pretty simple really
Who said the football team can't have home playoffs ?
More the sky may fall - you guys must be real worried about Dec. this year
you're kidding, right?
-
2
-
-
Benny, I guess I will have to respectfully disagree with you on the main premise, but I will agree with your comments. The letter clearly states that the athletes CANNOT wear anything with the logo or nickname in the bullet points. Therefore, why would that statement be in the document to "minimize or eliminate the presence". There is no gray with the athletes to "minimize", and this is to me a clear statement that the NCAA wants UND to direct the fans and supporters to not wear the gear. The "Therefore" statement can also be used to expand upon an original or previous statement, which I believe is the purpose.
I am not saying that the NCAA will forfeit UND in fans wear the logo, or shout "Sioux" at the end of the anthem, but I am saying that the NCAA can use this to put pressure on UND and I believe that they will. As I stated, I agree that they do not have control over a public facility, but who is to say that in a private facility that the NCAA would not put out their goon squad to not let folks in wearing the logo or nickname at some point. I am not willing to stick my head in the sand on this issue and if I were the university I would make the NCAA give a statement to the university to say they will not monitor fan clothing. I would hope the recent statement from President Kelley may have sparked something under him that this is bigger than he thought. After everything that the NCAA has put forward I do not trust them at all, and I would hope others do not, and at least request a clarification in writing in that regard.
UND reps, including players, can wear whatever they want to the games. However, if they're wearing the sioux logo or nickname, then UND forfeits. Therefore, the letter asks UND to minimize or eliminate the presence of the logo so that UND will not forfeit and the tournament will go on smoothly as it should.
If the NCAA begins having an issue with fans or private citizens who wear the sioux logo at NCAA events, then the NCAA will enforce that policy at the doors of the venue on its own. The NCAA has never nor ever will place the onus on UND to police every single fan at an NCAA event.
Sure, the NCAA could put "pressure on UND" to prevent fans from wearing the sioux logo, but given the recent state of public affairs in North Dakota, we all know that this will have absolutely zero effect and be entirely futile.
-
1
-
-
I want to reiterate what the second to last sentance in the letter to the university said, "Therefore, we ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname brought to an NCAA championship event". This is after the bullet points about the student athletes, band, cheerleaders, etc, and is definitely a reference to the fans and supporters. For those of you who do not think this is the case, I feel for you. I do agree with the statements above about a public place and freedom of speech and I do not think the NCAA will do anything about it at this event, but are going to be watching and I am sure will be reporting back to the university. I applaud President Kelley for actually making a statement in support of this, as it is quite unusual for him, and is the first support on this that I have seen.
This is why I am in support of the Spirit Lake law suit and will continue with them in that battle. It is a freedom of speech issue for me and I do not like the direction our country is going and will fight this fight with them. I may not agree with all of their arguements, but I will be by thier side.
Respectfully disagree as your interpretation is not at all what the letter is stating. In fact, it's quite clear that the letter is referring to university representatives. For sake of brevity, the letter essentially states: If UND representatives wear the sioux nickname or imagery the team forfeits. "Therefore, we ask that the university take measures to minimize or eliminate the presence of the imagery or nickname . . . ." The word "therefore" necessarily references a preceding statement. In this case, the presence of the sioux nickname or logo with university representatives.
It takes a bold leap in logic to somehow infer that this quoted sentence refers to individuals that are independent from the University---individuals that the letter doesn't even bother to mention by name, category, etc. How is UND supposed to control anyone other than UND representatives? How is UND going to prevent the wearing of sioux imagery by opposing teams' fans that are hopeful that the mere presence of a sioux logo will result in a UND forfeit?
-
Does anyone know if the Union "Dutchmen" can use their nickname this weekend?
-
I'm not a lawyer. I've only quickly read through the documents online. I listened online to the oral arguments. My opinion is that of a lay-person, nothing more. Saying that ...
The NDSC was asking the AG about "why now" and such. They really didn't attack why he was there (the constitutionality claim). They wanted to know why the SBoHE hadn't chosen to question constitutionality of other issues in the past (that the Legislature pointed to to claim their position and power). The AG came back with a reasonable response in that to this point they've tried to work things out outside the court but in this situation remedy is needed from the NDSC to prevent further harm.
The Legislature attorney got hammered on things like if you want to control nicknames, will you be controlling team colors and scheduling next? The NDSC wanted to know where the Legislature thought their power ended in light of the SBoHE's defined "full" (they were big on that word) control over the ND University System.
Reed Soderstrom (for SL CUR) really got beat up. It felt like one of the justices wanted to ask, "What is your standing here? Why are you here? This is an ND state gov't matter and you don't represent a state gov't entity." They brought up the Federal case and all but told him, "Why aren't you fighting that instead of wasting our time here?"
The Court asking the SecState attorney what day ballots would go to the printer to me was a "tell".
Honestly, I expect a narrowly focused ruling that the SBoHE has "full" control over the universities and that the Legislature needs to stay out of the details of operations and administration.
Reconcile the Board's "full authority . . . to prescribe, limit, or modify the course offered" at public schools with the legislature's constitutionally mandated requirement that is "secure a reasonable degree of uniformity in course of study."
Shame on the legislature's attorneys, and perhaps the Supreme Court, for failing to notice that "full authority" necessarily cannot amount to the exclusive degree of control for which the Board is arguing.
-
That is a moot point because I don't think the SL lawsuit will fail. They'll win easily and the NCAA will have no choice but to go back on their policy. You can't cower in fear of the bully, you have to stand up to the bully and punch him in the mouth.
Can you please explain the genesis of the lawsuit and the legal basis on which Spirit Lake will easily win? This is honestly the first time I've seen or heard of anyone suggesting that Spirit Lake has a chance in this case.
-
The nickname law itself wasn't the power grab. Using the sentiment over the nickname to eliminate the SBoHE is the power grab.
I agree that the SBoHE has allowed the legislature to infringe on the SB's authority on many other issues. And the SB wasn't going to push the issue this time either. That's why they didn't fight the constitutionality last year. They are probably concerned about the fight over funding that will come in 2013. But the nickname issue is very serious for UND and could do a great deal of harm. It would be irresponsible for the SB to not do everything in its power to take back control of the issue. They were finally forced to fight to take back the control that they have allowed to erode over the years.
I think you make a lot of well reasoned arguments, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree with you on this point.
-
This is a power grab by the legislature to take even more control of the SBoHE, or even eliminate the SBoHE. The legislature would like to micro manage the operation of Higher Education the way that they micro manage everything else. Carlson decided to use the nickname because it is an issue that can push emotional buttons with a lot of North Dakota citizens. He knew that he could make the SBoHE look like the enemy and he would look like a hero by taking down the bad guy. In doing so, he could push sentiment against the SBoHE into votes to get rid of the SBoHE. Remember, besides the nickname law last session he introduced legislation that would amend the constitution to replace the SBoHE with a Department of Education. He is again looking at different ways to accomplish the same thing in the next legislature.
The SBoHE wasn't looking for a constitutional fight. This was something that Carlson wanted in one form or another. Now he got it. The SBoHE is challenging the constitutionality now because they want to slow, or even stop, the momentum that the issue has developed. Right now there is probably a pretty good chance the initiated measure would pass. All of the unscientific polling I've seen gives the law a better than 70% favorablility rate. The law passing in June would add momentum to the possibility of the constitutional amendment passing in November. People in North Dakota have a history of being conservative with constitutional amendments and voting no, but it would be much easier for them to vote yes if the issue was already a state law. It also buys people time to inform the public about the issues that UND faces by keeping the nickname. If the SBoHE really wanted this constitutional challenge they probably would have pushed the issue a year ago after the law passed. Instead they did everything possible to work the system and get the legislature to fix the problem themselves. That is no longer a good option, and time is much more of an issue, so the SBoHE needed to make a move at this time.
I wouldn't say that I disagree with much of your sentiment, but that's not really the point. For many years, there have been legislative statutes in the Century Code that do far, far more to infringe on the SBHE's efficient and economic administration of UND. The SBHE seemingly has had no issue with them, at least to the provisions I cited.
Call Carlson what you want. Call the law unconstitutional. Say he is evil and has unconstitutional motives. But this nickname law (recall that several other legislators offered statutes of their own that had the same effect) is not as much of a "power grab" than what the legislature has already done to the SBHE . . . ten times over. There is an entire chapter of the Century Code devoted the the SBHE. There are entire chapters of the Century Code relating to higher education.
In other words, what Carlson has done is not novel nor has it infringed on the SBHE's authority even to the extent of previous legislation. Had it not been Carlson's law, it would have been from one of the other legislators who offered similar bills. The SBHE has acquiesced over and over again to the legislature. It's rather telling that when the legislature changed the name of Bottineau's university in 2009 through statute, the SBHE acknowledged that the legislature had the power to do so.
Apparently, the SBHE has made an about face and is challenging the nickname law, which is fine. But the SBHE's actions are not any less politically motivated than Al Carlson's, in my honest opinion.
-
You don't think Carlson's Folly wasn't a baldfaced power grab by somebody pushing his personal agenda? Really, even after all of the noise he made about about the Board's constitutional perogatives toward higher ed? And you don't think the court should recognize its original jurisdiction when there is a clear tension between the legislative and executive branches?
Power grab? Maybe, but the fact remains that there are a number of statutes that, under the SBHE's legal theory, do much more to infringe on the SBHE's authority over the "efficient and economic administration" of state colleges and universities than this nickname law. Why the legislature chose to challenge the nickname law rather than statutory fee caps, infrastructure maintenance, etc. is a bit confusing to say the least.
The SC won't be using its "original jurisdiction" because of a dispute between the two other branches of government, but because it has "original jurisdiction" to review the "petition process." Here, the petition process was fine. No errors; Jaeger has certified the petitions for vote. So no, it should not exercise its original jurisdiction, because the SBHE has failed to claim that the petition process was in error in the first place.
Now, I do understand the argument that "well, it's already at the Supreme Court, so they might as well decide it." But it sets up a horrible precedent. There is a litigation process for a reason. No discovery was performed in this matter, and the SBHE has produced no facts for the court as to how the presence of the nickname infringes on its economic and efficient administration of UND other than its own conclusory statements. And while I'm sure we can all list numerous examples, the fact remains that the SBHE had to skip this process for a reason---because the law might not exist in 80 some days. I mean, for all the laws that one could challenge, the SBHE goes after the statute, which may no longer be on the books in less than three months? Again, its a bit confusing to say the least.
-
Perhaps you should take up that "abuse of power" with Clueless Al.
No thank you, Clueless Scott. You're completely incorrect as filing a lawsuit is not an abuse of power. Heck, the SBHE may even win. But it's pathetic to call Carlson's actions politically motivated while ignoring the fact that the SBHE has chosen to skip the normal litigation process (because the nickname law might not even be around come June) by filing this suit . . . and then to further ignore the laundry-list of statutes that most certainly, under the SBHE's interpretation of the law, infringe on the SBHE's constitutional rights.
-
The Fargo Forum's editorial board takes a nice swipe at Carlson' Folly.
" ... because of the obtuseness of a legislative majority led by House Majority Leader Al Carlson, R-Fargo, whose conduct in the logo debate ought to disqualify him from leadership, and likely even from re-election to the North Dakota House. Arguably, he is single-handedly responsible for leading his lemming-like caucus into a miasma of litigation and recrimination that has put the university at risk ... "
And they sum up Thursday pretty well:
"The court has to cut through all the tangential currents swirling around the logo. The core of the issue is whether the constitutionally mandated higher ed board has the power to do what the state constitution says the board is supposed to do. The question is whether a legislative leader who seems quite willing to undermine the state constitution will be granted more power to pursue a campaign to politicize and micromanage the state’s colleges and universities."
http://www.inforum.c.../group/Opinion/
When speaking about micromanaging the state's colleges and universities, I wonder why the Fargo Forum chose not to mention all those other "micromanaging" laws like NDCC 15-10.3-03, whereby the legislature prohibits the SBHE from increasing fees by more than 1 percent; NDCC 15-10-13.1, whereby the legislature requires a certain level of written and oral English proficiency for all instructors irrespective of the SBHE's opinions; or perhaps NDCC 15-10-12.1, whereby the legislature requires the SBHE to obtain legislative approval to perform infrastructure maintenance funded by private donations.
So the SBHE chooses to challenge the static presence of a nickname and logo because it infringes on its "full authority" over the "efficient and economic administration" of UND, but chooses to ignore the presence of statutes limiting the SBHE's control over university fees?
Let the the blind keep leading the blind.
-
Nice piece by Omdahl: Higher ed’s fate in court
Several factual errors and omissions need to be cleared up.
1. The legislature intervened and is now a party to this case, so there is not a misappropriation of funds, at least under Mr. Omdahl's theory. Check the Supreme Court website.
2. The North Dakota Constitution specifically establishes three branches of government, regardless of what Mr. Omdahl wants. (The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are coequal branches of government. Article XI, Section 26.) The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the SBHE is a member of the executive branch.
3. The legislature already has control over course of study ("The legislative assembly shall take such other steps as may be necessary to . . . secure a reasonable degree of uniformity in course of study." Art. VIII, Section 4.), the legislature already has a full chapter of laws relating to out-of-state enrollment in NDCC 15-10.1, and many other aspects of higher education.
So Mr. Ohmdal, "some" operate under a "seventh-grade understanding of government" because they borrow the federal government's three branch model of democracy, even though the same is specifically provided for in North Dakota's constitution. Yet, you can cite to literature about the federal government to support your opinion that the state of North Dakota has four branches of government? Funny how that works.
Wow, this isn't the same Lloyd Omdahl that I use to know.
-
2
-
-
-
The difficulty in scheduling UND right now is your stupid nickname, not Don Lucia. Why should Lucia even explore playing games with UND when the U has made it clear they will not play UND until the name is gone?
http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/137303883.html
Let's not omit facts next time. It's well documented that the University of North Dakota [no nickname] hockey team was making every effort to schedules games with Minnesota. Even without the "Fighting Sioux" nickname, Minnesota couldn't commit to keeping the rivalry alive. Notice how Roman's article refers to Minnesota as the "Gophers" and North Dakota as "UND".
-
I pity any fool that would hire this guy Soderstrom to represent them in a court of law. Some random attorney, nor any court in the state of North Dakota does not have the authority to determine what meets NCAA requirements.
That must be why the settlement agreement is enforced under the laws of North Dakota and gives our state courts continuing jurisdiction to resolve any dispute as to whether UND has meet the NCAA's requirements. Don't confuse this fact with Mr. Soderstrom's mistaken belief that the 1969 ceremony complies with the NCAA's requirements under the settlement agreement.
-
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/231531/group/homepage/
Congrats UND Baseball! Big win over a Big D1 school.
-
1
-
-
Now you're starting to understand why I say the only, only remaining option is the SL case v. the NCAA. Why that? Because it's in FEDERAL court, not State court.
And now you see why I say SL's efforts would all be best directed to that case and that case alone. (The NCAA doesn't have to regard ND State laws.)
The NCAA won't respect anything other than a ruling from a Federal court.
PS - Unfortunately, I see SL's chances in "SL v. NCAA" as about the same as UAA or MSU-Mankato winning the DI mens hockey title this year.
The NCAA is absolutely under the jurisdiction of North Dakota's laws and courts. The state's lawsuit against the NCAA was based upon a state antitrust claim. Surely the NCAA would have filed a motion to dismiss if not subject to North Dakota law, but rather it agreed to a settlement under our state courts.
But, you are right about Spirit Lake's chances of winning its lawsuit against the NCAA. It'll be dismissed; appealed to the Circuit Court; dismissal upheld; writ denied by the Supreme Court . . . keeping the nickname issue alive for at least two more years.
-
Does anyone know if a ruling will be made that day or if this will take a few days? Also is there an appeal process in case it is unconstitutional or is this the end of the line for Carlson's law.
It'll be a few weeks before the decision, but before the ballot printing date, i'm sure. Parties can petition the Supreme Court for a rehearing for 14 days after any decision. But for all practical purposes, it is a process that never comes into play.
-
The religious argument is a red herring.
The SBoHE is claiming the Legislature passed an unconstitutional law. If that's law is unconstitutional, so it the law undoing it. And if both laws are unconstitutional, why hold an election to reinstate a law that isn't constitutional in the first place.
This is the credited response. Beyond that, Soderstrom diminishes his own argument by claiming that any conflict between constitutional provisions should be decided in favor of the last enacted provision (paragraph 37). So then Mr. Soderstrom, wouldn't Art. VIII, Section 6(6) trump your religious argument under Art. I, Section 3? Moreover, if the Court follows any line of federal jurisprudence, then this is clearly not religious discrimination.
Nice try, but strike 1 for the nickname proponents.
-
2
-
-
In other words, the "current board" isn't doing what Clueless Al wants, so he wants to reset the clock to turn it into a political proxy.
What else has the board been doing that Carlson disagrees with, or is this just a nickname thing?
-
1
-
-
Sorry if this has been posted, but here is The Hockey News take: http://www.thehockey...e-ramps-up.html
This is way off the mark. The name and logo do not have to be on the jerseys. UND's men's hockey will be, in my opinion, the least affected program by the NCAA sanctions. "Literally no shot at a national title?" Give me a break.
-
Maybe someone out there can help me out on this one. It is my current understanding that current state law (which was repealed, but is now again active due to the petition) mandates use of the Fighting Sioux name by UND sports teams. It is also my understanding that the settlement with the NCAA and NCAA policy mandate forfeiture of NCAA playoff games if the Fighting Sioux name continues to be used by UND sports teams. Thus, either state law or the NCAA will have to be defied by UND if we qualify for NCAA playoff competition. There is no longer any middle ground on this issue. Legally, UND is now in the position of either having to defy the NCAA and forfeit playoff games, or defy state law. This is my current interpretation of the facts before us. If my understanding of the current legal situation is wrong, I look foward to being corrected.
UND can comply with both state law and the settlement agreement. The settlement simply provides that if UND continues using the nickname then the school will be sanctioned and cannot, among other things, host playoff games, rather than entirely forfeit the game, itself.
Even the NCAA has stated that "the Settlement Agreement did not compel the SBHE to retain or retire the nickname. Rather, the Agreement simply set forth possible scenarios in relation to UND’s nickname and outlined the impact of each scenario under the NCAA championships Policy."
ND Supreme Court Rules against the NDSBoHE
in UND Nickname
Posted
Not necessarily expected, but as a matter of jurisprudence; i.e., how court's generally choose to decide cases, this highly conforms with the position of all American courts. In other words, courts purposely avoid making constitutional rulings if they can dispose of the issue in another manner. Here, that is exactly what happened.
It might not be the most pragmatic way of doing things, however, especially for those of us who are going to have to see this case get filed again if the june vote goes in favor of the nickname.