The Sicatoka Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 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." What does the bolded part even mean? All the colleges are to be the same? That no college can go on its own calendar or offer a unique approach (ala Colorado College's "one class at a time" block plan approach)? I don't understand the intent of the bold statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 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. Say for argument sake the law is ruled unconstitutional...what does this do to the petitions for the one in November, does that still go on? And does this take some steam out of the SL trial set in 2013? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Again, pure speculation by me, if the law is unconstitutional it stops the June vote, but the November petitions could keep going. SL not getting its way with the NDSC makes it easier for the NCAA to claim that SL has no part in the settlement between the State and the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDBIZ Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 SL not getting its way with the NDSC makes it easier for the NCAA to claim that SL has no part in the settlement between the State and the NCAA. Hence, SL should've focused on its lawsuit against the NC$$, rather than get sidetracked trying to hurt UND. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Hence, SL should've focused on its lawsuit against the NC$$, rather than get sidetracked trying to hurt UND. More accurately, SL should have acted on its "rights" with regard to the Sioux moniker 6-7 years ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 More accurately, SL should have acted on its "rights" with regard to the Sioux moniker 6-7 years ago. That is what IMO is going to hurt SL. I am sure the NCAA and the Federal courts are going to wonder where were you in 2005? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 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. It was a fun one to attend. I guess I don't share your perspective about the Court vis-a-vis AG but I could be wrong. The AG was asked some pointed and tough questions about why now, where's the harm, if the voters reject the measure where's the harm, SBoHE participated and lobbied in favor of another law that infringed upon its authority and it had no problem with that; (isn't the board being harmed by that), wouldn't there be a chance that we'd be here again estoppel etc.; Reed was ordered to be there as point person for the referral measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 That is what IMO is going to hurt SL. I am sure the NCAA and the Federal courts are going to wonder where were you in 2005? Indian country works differently than white man society. AND, they were not asked by the NCAA or any party to participate in the process. That is a question for the NCAA and not the tribes. The tribes should have been signatories on surrender agreement, especially since the NCAA publicly acknowledged time and again that the namesake tribes basically "own" the native imagery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 The AG was asked some pointed and tough questions about why now, where's the harm, if the voters reject the measure where's the harm, SBoHE participated and lobbied in favor of another law that infringed upon its authority and it had no problem with that; (isn't the board being harmed by that), wouldn't there be a chance that we'd be here again estoppel etc.; And the AG handled those fairly well. He pointed out that just because harm wasn't challenged before (in numerous other situations) doesn't mean it can' be challenged now. He pointed out that the SBoHE has tried to work outside the Court (politically) but was left no choice at this time. He did a nice job of pointing to current harm -- the unconstitutionality of Carlson's Folly. The weakest answer the AG gave was to the "how do we know you won't be back" question from the NDSC. That hurt him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 http://bismarcktribu...1871e3ce6c.html "I don't know a bright-line test. I'm here to tell you that (the Legislature) can decide what the nickname of the athletic program is," Durick replied. He said the Board of Higher Education had presented nothing but "bare allegations" that the university had been harmed by keeping the nickname. "I think there needs to be some evidence," Durick said. "You've got to either have (a sworn statement), or you've got to do something." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 And the AG handled those fairly well. He pointed out that just because harm wasn't challenged before (in numerous other situations) doesn't mean it can' be challenged now. He pointed out that the SBoHE has tried to work outside the Court (politically) but was left no choice at this time. He did a nice job of pointing to current harm -- the unconstitutionality of Carlson's Folly. The weakest answer the AG gave was to the "how do we know you won't be back" question from the NDSC. That hurt him. That and there's no evidentiary record. They seemed cautious about taking something up with no record established at the district court level. It didn't sound to me as if they bought the AG's "it's a purely legal issue" line but, again, I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 http://bismarcktribu...1871e3ce6c.html Apparently being dropped from schedules and meets isn't enough for some people ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Apparently being dropped from schedules and meets isn't enough for some people ... I'm thinking Al Carlson could sign an affidavit. Or maybe he's forgotten about a certain trip to Indianapolis and why the legislature backtracked in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I'm thinking Al Carlson could sign an affidavit. Or maybe he's forgotten about a certain trip to Indianapolis and why the legislature backtracked in the first place? That would require Clueless Al to admit he screwed up in the first place. I am, however, warming to the idea of petitioning the NC$$ to put the entire state under sanction as a result of legislative action, ala Mississippi and South Carolina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewey Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 That would require Clueless Al to admit he screwed up in the first place. I am, however, warming to the idea of petitioning the NC$$ to put the entire state under sanction as a result of legislative action, ala Mississippi and South Carolina. Why not? Maybe that would get the Congressional three stooges off of their lazy arses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND92,96 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 That would require Clueless Al to admit he screwed up in the first place. I am, however, warming to the idea of petitioning the NC$$ to put the entire state under sanction as a result of legislative action, ala Mississippi and South Carolina. I haven't listened to the oral arguments, but I'm a bit surprised that after Durick made the above-quoted statement, apparently no justice asked him point blank why the legislature repealed the statute in the first place? Wasn't the repeal enough proof that the legislature believed the threat to UND was very real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 That would require Clueless Al to admit he screwed up in the first place. I am, however, warming to the idea of petitioning the NC$$ to put the entire state under sanction as a result of legislative action, ala Mississippi and South Carolina. Heck, why not? After all, if NDSU students/alums want to rally around the idea of sticking it to UND athletics, let them feel the hurt too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Heck, why not? After all, if NDSU students/alums want to rally around the idea of sticking it to UND athletics, let them feel the hurt too. They (Bisonville) feel its UND's problem..fine restrict the signatures to only those at UND or associated with UND. No NDSU fans allowed. If they (NDSU fans) sign the petition they should feel the consequences because they are telling the NCAA they support a school to break NCAA policy...so why shouldn't they (NDSU) be punished by the NCAA. Aren't they an accessory to the crime? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 They (Bisonville) feel its UND's problem..fine restrict the signatures to only those at UND or associated with UND. No NDSU fans allowed. If they (NDSU fans) sign the petition they should feel the consequences because they are telling the NCAA they support a school to break NCAA policy...so why shouldn't they (NDSU) be punished by the NCAA. Aren't they an accessory to the crime? The entire state vis a vis its legislative process should be considered complicit, and "punished" accordingly. And that logic would probably appeal to the eggheads that run the NC$$, as well as their bedwetting adherents in academia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iramurphy Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 It seems the idea has the AC pissants excited and they are calling some guy named Ira names (go figure). UND doesn't blame the issue on the AC. UND and the SBoHE wants to move on. We didn't get the required approval from the tribes and have been trying to retire the name. The legislature and some of our citizens are trying mandate UND keep the name. It isn't right for the NCAA to sanction UND for things out of their control. What the NCAA did in the southern states, whose legislators mandated continued use of the rebel flag, was to sanction the state . Some AC fans consider similar action against the state of N. Dak. preposterous and think it is a good idea to support the petitioners and the referendum. They may wish to rethink that one. I doubt the NCAA would go that far, but if the NCAA wants to put the issue to rest once and for all that is likely all it would take on their part. Fans of both schools and U of Mary and Minot would vote against it. The AC folks may consider that trying to screw UND athletics may not be worth all the fun they are having. The NCAA is private organization run by University presidents. I wouldn't bet on anything it may or may not do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Say for argument sake the law is ruled unconstitutional...what does this do to the petitions for the one in November, does that still go on? And does this take some steam out of the SL trial set in 2013? The one big difference between the June referral and the November amendment would be that even if they get the November one on the ballot, it still doesn't take effect until after it's voted on. So, the name would be discontinued for now, and hopefully people are educated enough on how to vote. Plus, that will be a yes means yes and no means no worded question. No confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 It seems the idea has the AC pissants excited and they are calling some guy named Ira names (go figure). UND doesn't blame the issue on the AC. UND and the SBoHE wants to move on. We didn't get the required approval from the tribes and have been trying to retire the name. The legislature and some of our citizens are trying mandate UND keep the name. It isn't right for the NCAA to sanction UND for things out of their control. What the NCAA did in the southern states, whose legislators mandated continued use of the rebel flag, was to sanction the state . Some AC fans consider similar action against the state of N. Dak. preposterous and think it is a good idea to support the petitioners and the referendum. They may wish to rethink that one. I doubt the NCAA would go that far, but if the NCAA wants to put the issue to rest once and for all that is likely all it would take on their part. Fans of both schools and U of Mary and Minot would vote against it. The AC folks may consider that trying to screw UND athletics may not be worth all the fun they are having. The NCAA is private organization run by University presidents. I wouldn't bet on anything it may or may not do. Its okay that Aces1180 guy loves to call me names as he trolls on here copies what we type then weasel on back to BVille and post it there to make fun of it. Instead of being a Man and posting what he thinks of what we write on this board where everyone can see it. I am not registered on BVille nor would I ever but be a man not a two year old. Did you hear what he said..he he he he. What a tool. As for the AC fans getting back at UND...why don't they drive to south Fargo knock on Crazy Al's door and ask him why did he have to get involved? Even though Al is one of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 The one big difference between the June referral and the November amendment would be that even if they get the November one on the ballot, it still doesn't take effect until after it's voted on. So, the name would be discontinued for now, and hopefully people are educated enough on how to vote. Plus, that will be a yes means yes and no means no worded question. No confusion. Could that on in November be over turned by the legislature? Then petitioned, and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Could that on in November be over turned by the legislature? Then petitioned, and so on. I don't live in ND and haven't studied state law in a long time, but I believe that it could be referred and put to a vote. You bring up a valid point about how long this mess could really go on yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Darrell, it's not any different than you posting here what you saw there, is it? If you're going to take the time to even go there and read it, go ahead and post there to refute what's said instead of dragging their garbage here. Would think the members there could do the same. Or else just ignore it. Neither fan base is rational on their respective sites anyway. That's why we are all fanatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.