Media Stories on the Sioux Name

[darell1976]

I stated this same thought a couple weeks ago.

If it was just UND deciding to suffer a fate only UND should suffer consequences.

But if the whole state decides but only one would suffer, that's not right, so ...

If the whole state votes for such an amendment, the whole state should suffer the fate. Call it "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

And yes, the precedent exists within the NCAA as state laws in MS and SC trigger sanctions against the entirety of those states.

http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?20284-Preposterous-Statements(Bisonville-Style)/page123

Bisonville fans not thrilled about that idea.

[watchmaker49]

Some great points being made here by many posters. Why should UND be punished when it is not UND that is now causing the problems? How fast would Carlson back off if sanctions would hit NDSU the same way? Like on the spot because if he did not drop his power grab (aka tea party mentality) he would get thrown out with a recall vote. If this does go to a vote next fall as a constitutional measure all UND fans and alumini should contact the NCAA asking them for sanctions against the state. How fast would Bison fans not support the measure then? No home playoff football games in Bisonville? Carlson would have to leave the state. Or build a bomb proof garage so when his car went boom it would not damage the neighbors homes.

[ScottM]

I stated this same thought a couple weeks ago. If it was just UND deciding to suffer a fate only UND should suffer consequences. But if the whole state decides but only one would suffer, that's not right, so ... If the whole state votes for such an amendment, the whole state should suffer the fate. Call it "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And yes, the precedent exists within the NCAA as state laws in MS and SC trigger sanctions against the entirety of those states.

To do otherwise would render the NC$$ subject to charges of hypocrisy ... oh, wait.

I do like the idea though. Perhaps a petition to the NC$$ is in order.

[darell1976]

Some NDSU fans want UND to go against the NCAA policy and keep the name. Therefore IMO NDSU should get punished. This is not a college against the NCAA its the state against the NCAA and if one school goes down the whole state goes down. People on BVille is blaming UND...this is NOT UND's problem. They were retiring the name when Al "NDSU alumn" Carlson came into the picture. Again why is this UND's problem??

[The Sicatoka]

Got RealPlayer?

Listen to the NDSC today at 3 pm:

http://www.ndcourts....rt/webcasts.htm

[darell1976]

Got RealPlayer?

Listen to the NDSC today at 3 pm:

http://www.ndcourts....rt/webcasts.htm

Just by hearing some of it...the SC is not impressed with the pro-nickname people.

[The Sicatoka]

Soderstrom and Durick got asked some questions that left them stammering for an answer.

[ScottM]

Soderstrom and Durick got asked some questions that left them stammering for an answer.

Did Reed talk about Divine Providence? That's always a winner ...

[darell1976]

adjurned until 1:30 tomorrow.

[The Sicatoka]

adjurned until 1:30 tomorrow.

But that's not this case.

[darell1976]

But that's not this case.

So it will be after 1:30 correct?

[The Sicatoka]

Oral arguments in the SBoHE case are done.

[darell1976]

Oral arguments in the SBoHE case are done.

Is it over except for their decision?

[The Sicatoka]

Yes.

[darell1976]

Yes.

I am thinking we hear something next week...anyone else want to guess?

[The Sicatoka]

The specifically asked for the date June ballots would be printed. I'll say before that.

[Chewey]

In person, they were not impressed with several of the AG positions. Far from a slam dunk for the AG.

[GeauxSioux]

He also argued that the ceremony and Spirit Lake’s 2009 referendum approving UND’s use of the name should satisfy the NCAA’s requirement of namesake approval.

Wrong!

Soderstrom had also argued that the request for an injunction against putting the nickname referendum on the June ballot was “speculative” because the secretary of state’s office had not formally certified the referral petitions as having sufficient valid signatures.

Huh? Didn't he just state that this week or wasn't that "official"?

[ScottM]

I have faith in our justice system to do the right thing.

If you follow that theory, you're going to be sorely disappointed a good deal of the time.

[The Sicatoka]

The only thing here that is unconstitutional is the NCAA policy against Native American nicknames.

The NCAA is a private entity, not a state actor.

Only state actors are required to abide by the Constitution's First Amendement.

[The Sicatoka]

In person, they were not impressed with several of the AG positions. Far from a slam dunk for the AG.

I listened to the whole thing online. The Board's attorney got some tough questions, but he handled them well.

Soderstrom and Durick were taken to task much harder at times just by the tone of voice in the questions they got.

[darell1976]

I listened to the whole thing online. The Board's attorney got some tough questions, but he handled them well.

Soderstrom and Durick were taken to task much harder at times just by the tone of voice in the questions they got.

So Sic based on what you heard (I only caught it towards the end) whats the odds the SBoHE prevails and UND can retire the name?

[The Sicatoka]

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.

[The Sicatoka]

Anyone with RealPlayer can listen to yesterday's oral arguments at:

http://www.ndcourts.gov/Court/Calendar/20120112.htm

[Benny Baker]

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.