I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

wifeisafurd said:

---

if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.?

---

IMO, FWIW, etc.

The courts could hold that reasonable, content-neutral school rules governing student speech on social media that is directly related to the school are not unconstitutional.

The same courts could hold that it is also not unconstitutional for a state to overrule its own schools' rules and permit athletes to make money from NIL.

wifeisafurd said:

---

The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

---

Other factors to consider: when and how the post was made. The school probably has a right to regulate online behavior if it happens on school property/during school hours, and involves school equipment (district issued tablet or Chromebook) and/or a district issued email account.

Schools shouldn't even have the enhanced search and seizure powers they currently enjoy onsite. If Terry is good enough for the street it should also be good enough for the classroom.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

Part of me is horrified that the parents would bring litigation to defend their daughter on something like this, but I looked it up and the actual post she got dinged for wasn't that bad. She basically extended her middle finger and said "f school" in a disappearing snapchat post that someone else took a screenshot of and shared around. For those who aren't familiar with the case, this article provides a fairly detailed summary of the actions.

Long story short, the cheerleading club, which is a voluntary student activity, imposed team rules regarding conduct and communications and her behavior violated it.

Quote:

---

The team based its decision to suspend Levy on team rules it said she agreed to follow when she signed up, including avoiding "foul language and inappropriate gestures" and a strict policy against "any negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders or coaches placed on the internet."

---

It really depends on how the court decides to frame the issue and how broad of a ruling they choose to make. I could see an outcome where they limit the applicability to the reasonableness of rules imposed in connection voluntary school activities or they could take it much further.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Agree.

Whatever your opinion on this case how does it tie to NIL?

We should just follow the law as it already exists. She didn't threaten anybody, so the school should have no say on her social media.The school isn't her employer.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Now '71, you need to realize that:

1) you are showing your age with a reference to Ms. Woods, and even I don't get the relevance of a woman who erased Nixon tapes to this. Perhaps a reference to Elizabeth Prelogar would be more relevant?

2) You are wrong in terms of the legal connection, as the legal community is in fact raising the connection of the Alston case that you mention. The briefs in the case mentioned the Alston case and in particular the position of the Federal government brief (the Solicitor General). While Acting U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar supported the players in Alston, she submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mahanoy High. Prelogar maintains that whether a school can punish a student shouldn't center on "the precise time or location at which the speech occurs." Instead, "the consequence of students' speech on other students and school activities" is key, and that the school's interest superseded NIL and state laws with respect to NIL. The concern was students could demand monetary damages over discipline for disruptive social media posts, even posts that "reach the whole school immediately" and "impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion."

You probably also missed the amicus brief filed by the College Athletes Advocates, responding to the Solicitor General, and addressing NIL.

SCOTUS may or may not tip its hand on Alston in this case.

dimitrig said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Agree.

Whatever your opinion on this case how does it tie to NIL?

---

See my post above

"[E]ven posts that 'reach the whole school immediately' and 'impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion.'"

So, in other words, a thought police. What a ****ing joke.

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Now '71, you need to realize that:

1) you are showing your age with a reference to Ms. Woods, and even I don't get the relevance of a woman who erased Nixon tapes to this. Perhaps a reference to Elizabeth Prelogar would be more relevant?

2) You are wrong in terms of the legal connection, as the legal community is in fact raising the connection of the Alston case that you mention. The briefs in the case mentioned the Alston case and in particular the position of the Federal government brief (the Solicitor General). While Acting U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar supported the players in Alston, she submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mahanoy High. Prelogar maintains that whether a school can punish a student shouldn't center on "the precise time or location at which the speech occurs." Instead, "the consequence of students' speech on other students and school activities" is key, and that the school's interest superseded NIL and state laws with respect to NIL. The concern was students could demand monetary damages over discipline for disruptive social media posts, even posts that "reach the whole school immediately" and "impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion."

You probably also missed the amicus brief filed by the College Athletes Advocates, responding to the Solicitor General, and addressing NIL.

SCOTUS may or may not tip its hand on Alston in this case.

---

I guess you don't remember the convoluted effort Woods would have had to have made to erase the tapes. It was a standing joke at the time "pulling a Rosemary Woods". In essence, trying to thread a needle in a pitch dark room.

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Now '71, you need to realize that:

1) you are showing your age with a reference to Ms. Woods, and even I don't get the relevance of a woman who erased Nixon tapes to this. Perhaps a reference to Elizabeth Prelogar would be more relevant?

2) You are wrong in terms of the legal connection, as the legal community is in fact raising the connection of the Alston case that you mention. The briefs in the case mentioned the Alston case and in particular the position of the Federal government brief (the Solicitor General). While Acting U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar supported the players in Alston, she submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mahanoy High. Prelogar maintains that whether a school can punish a student shouldn't center on "the precise time or location at which the speech occurs." Instead, "the consequence of students' speech on other students and school activities" is key, and that the school's interest superseded NIL and state laws with respect to NIL. The concern was students could demand monetary damages over discipline for disruptive social media posts, even posts that "reach the whole school immediately" and "impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion."

You probably also missed the amicus brief filed by the College Athletes Advocates, responding to the Solicitor General, and addressing NIL.

SCOTUS may or may not tip its hand on Alston in this case.

---

I guess you don't remember the convoluted effort Woods would have had to have made to erase the tapes. It was a standing joke at the time "pulling a Rosemary Woods". In essence, trying to thread a needle in a pitch dark room.

---

I was just a child at the time, so I don't recall the particulars. Any thoughts relevant to the actual thread?

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Now '71, you need to realize that:

1) you are showing your age with a reference to Ms. Woods, and even I don't get the relevance of a woman who erased Nixon tapes to this. Perhaps a reference to Elizabeth Prelogar would be more relevant?

2) You are wrong in terms of the legal connection, as the legal community is in fact raising the connection of the Alston case that you mention. The briefs in the case mentioned the Alston case and in particular the position of the Federal government brief (the Solicitor General). While Acting U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar supported the players in Alston, she submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mahanoy High. Prelogar maintains that whether a school can punish a student shouldn't center on "the precise time or location at which the speech occurs." Instead, "the consequence of students' speech on other students and school activities" is key, and that the school's interest superseded NIL and state laws with respect to NIL. The concern was students could demand monetary damages over discipline for disruptive social media posts, even posts that "reach the whole school immediately" and "impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion."

You probably also missed the amicus brief filed by the College Athletes Advocates, responding to the Solicitor General, and addressing NIL.

SCOTUS may or may not tip its hand on Alston in this case.

---

I guess you don't remember the convoluted effort Woods would have had to have made to erase the tapes. It was a standing joke at the time "pulling a Rosemary Woods". In essence, trying to thread a needle in a pitch dark room.

---

I was just a child at the time, so I don't recall the particulars. Any thoughts relevant to the actual thread?

---

Sure. Just reread my initial post...

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Now '71, you need to realize that:

1) you are showing your age with a reference to Ms. Woods, and even I don't get the relevance of a woman who erased Nixon tapes to this. Perhaps a reference to Elizabeth Prelogar would be more relevant?

2) You are wrong in terms of the legal connection, as the legal community is in fact raising the connection of the Alston case that you mention. The briefs in the case mentioned the Alston case and in particular the position of the Federal government brief (the Solicitor General). While Acting U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar supported the players in Alston, she submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mahanoy High. Prelogar maintains that whether a school can punish a student shouldn't center on "the precise time or location at which the speech occurs." Instead, "the consequence of students' speech on other students and school activities" is key, and that the school's interest superseded NIL and state laws with respect to NIL. The concern was students could demand monetary damages over discipline for disruptive social media posts, even posts that "reach the whole school immediately" and "impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion."

You probably also missed the amicus brief filed by the College Athletes Advocates, responding to the Solicitor General, and addressing NIL.

SCOTUS may or may not tip its hand on Alston in this case.

---

I guess you don't remember the convoluted effort Woods would have had to have made to erase the tapes. It was a standing joke at the time "pulling a Rosemary Woods". In essence, trying to thread a needle in a pitch dark room.

---

I was just a child at the time, so I don't recall the particulars. Any thoughts relevant to the actual thread?

---

Sure. Just reread my initial post...

---

Why bother, the you don't even know the arguments made to the court in the amicus briefs or the role of the solicitor general, who made the arguments directly to the court in this case. A new reference: Dunning-Krueger. Perhaps less famous than Rosemary Woods, but nevertheless applicable to your post.

WalterSobchak said:

---

"[E]ven posts that 'reach the whole school immediately' and 'impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion.'"

So, in other words, a thought police. What a ****ing joke.

---

Point taken. I see a structure in professional sports where a player is disciplined (or can't be disciplined) for speech by a Commissioner, league, team, coach, etc. under some type of collective bargaining agreement or rules with players, that typically doesn't exist elsewhere. There is a conflict when college players would be impacted by discipline by losing NIL money. For example, you make derisive on-line comments about another player being gay, like a Cal football player did a few years back, and Wilcox then kicks you off the team. Is that a violation of free speech that now costs you money? In that case, the player just transferred I believe.

Was Britany even really expressing thoughts or just a teen emoting? Why do we have zero tolerance school administrators even addressing these things? If the other cheerleaders are pissed they can socially isolate her. Teen girls are really good at that. This doesn't arise to impairing cheerleading team morale or whatever the SG is selling. Or the concept of ever evolving parent rights where you sue at every slight to your child. Tell your daughter she acted stupid and suck up the discipline, or just move her to a school that doesn't have its head up its butt and let her cheerlead there. We have a SCOTUS that often ducks the most important issues of the day, but wants to address the rant of an upset teen.

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I posted this on the Insider Board should be interesting to see the difference in responses:

Taking from a recap by the NY Times:

A decision coming out this month:

Brandi Levy, a 14-year-old in central Pennsylvania, failed to make the varsity cheerleading team at her public high school. She responded with an angry, vulgar message on Snapchat. The school responded by suspending her from the junior varsity team for a year. The case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., raises the issue of how much schools can regulate online behavior.

During oral arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of the punishment's severity (this could get tossed down to the lower court because they believe cheerleader Brandi didn't really suffer damages - take that for those of you with cheerleader daughters). But if not, the issue is if SCOTUS will use this case to issue a sweeping ruling about student speech and social media, if they find for the school district. They could also issue a narrow ruling, but if they say a school can effectively control student speech on social media, where does that leave NIL? If the court so holds, what does that do with state laws re NIL, what the NCAA is drafting, etc.? You lawyers? Seems like an area ripe for federal legislation. Or should the school have no say in what goes on line?

---

I think you pulled a "Rosemary Woods" by trying to connect this case to NIL. Only in extremely rare instances does the Court go beyond the specific issue at hand in their decisions.

There is a separate case that should be ruled upon later this month that addresses some significant NCAA policies. As far as college athletics is concerned, that is the one to keep an eye on....

---

Now '71, you need to realize that:

1) you are showing your age with a reference to Ms. Woods, and even I don't get the relevance of a woman who erased Nixon tapes to this. Perhaps a reference to Elizabeth Prelogar would be more relevant?

2) You are wrong in terms of the legal connection, as the legal community is in fact raising the connection of the Alston case that you mention. The briefs in the case mentioned the Alston case and in particular the position of the Federal government brief (the Solicitor General). While Acting U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar supported the players in Alston, she submitted an amicus brief in favor of Mahanoy High. Prelogar maintains that whether a school can punish a student shouldn't center on "the precise time or location at which the speech occurs." Instead, "the consequence of students' speech on other students and school activities" is key, and that the school's interest superseded NIL and state laws with respect to NIL. The concern was students could demand monetary damages over discipline for disruptive social media posts, even posts that "reach the whole school immediately" and "impair the team environment, morale, and cohesion."

You probably also missed the amicus brief filed by the College Athletes Advocates, responding to the Solicitor General, and addressing NIL.

SCOTUS may or may not tip its hand on Alston in this case.

---

I guess you don't remember the convoluted effort Woods would have had to have made to erase the tapes. It was a standing joke at the time "pulling a Rosemary Woods". In essence, trying to thread a needle in a pitch dark room.

---

I was just a child at the time, so I don't recall the particulars. Any thoughts relevant to the actual thread?

---

Sure. Just reread my initial post...

---

Why bother, the you don't even know the arguments made to the court in the amicus briefs or the role of the solicitor general, who made the arguments directly to the court in this case. A new reference: Dunning-Krueger. Perhaps less famous than Rosemary Woods, but nevertheless applicable to your post.

---

Understanding how the Court functions is far more important than understanding the intricacies of each case. The Court is a political animal. First and foremost, decisions are rendered in that context. The composition of the Court today leans to conservatively assessing the merits of each case and generally comes to a similar opinion. In making decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues have avoided going beyond the immediate scope of each case. Instead, they opt for a narrow interpretation of the law when issuing opinions. Were the Court to extend any decision to include NIL, it would be counter to how it has decided cases under Roberts.

The parameters of NIL will ultimately be developed by Congress. The Court is aware of this and will sidestep the issue in deference to Congress. It is just a matter of time before the legislators in Washington address the topic.

Valentino Daltoso interviewed in this podcast from NPR.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/04/1003279342/amateur-hour-at-the-supreme-court