New at Reason
Jacob Sullum explains why what's bad for Sammy Sosa might not be so good for you, either.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Sam Franklin | January 3, 2007, 7:53am | #
Eh. You can argue these scope of discovery questions all day. Many, many people do that for a living. I sometimes sense a preconception at HnR that most lawyers represent tort plaintiffs and classes. Actually, what lawyers usually do is argue discovery motions similar to what Mr. Sullum discusses in the article.Oh, yeah, lawyers probably also advise on creative ways to keep databases separate so that courts don't hold that there has been co-mingling the way the 9th Cir. has here.
Oh, yeah. And to suss out the economic bias, the 9th Circuit is the Hollywood Circuit, and Hollywood competes with baseball.
Oh, and another thing: the player's remedy to the violation of the confidentality agreement (if in fact the terms of this confidentiality agreement have been violated -- these agreements often contain a subpoena exception) would be for the players to sue the people that they signed the confidentiality agreement with. They have money. They can make the players whole again with their money if it comes to that. I mean that is what this comes down to: money. This ain't Mudville.
Warren | January 3, 2007, 9:55am | #
That's right Sam. The solution to goddamned lawyers running roughshod over your life is to hire more fucking lawyers. The legal profession is nothing but an organized crime shakedown racket. "Pay us protection money, or else!" That's why the noun 'lawyer' must always be modified.I wonder if the 9th cir. has even read the 4th amendment.
VM | January 3, 2007, 10:49am | #
"But you needn't worry about the privacy of your electronic records, as long as you're confident they haven't been hanging with the wrong crowd."Jacob: you have just highlighted the argument of the "Meletary (sic) lawyer" et al who can't understand the threat to liberty that we're facing. Come to think of it, Jesse's post from 12/31 ("Another Year End List") got answers from people who seemed to argue just that, too!
(full confession: I thought the answer was "Sneezing")
Sam Franklin | January 3, 2007, 10:52am | #
That's right Sam. The solution to goddamned lawyers running roughshod over your life is to hire more fucking lawyers. The legal profession is nothing but an organized crime shakedown racket. "Pay us protection money, or else!"Well, I can see why you would think I would feel that way, but that is not how I do feel. i think the steroids crackdown is reprehensible. I think grand jury procedures are getting out of control. I think this is a government power problem, i think the problem resides mostly with the executive branch and rabidly anti-crime baby boomer voters. I think what is happening with baseball is downright libertarian.
I also hope that you don't think I am trying to excuse any economic bias that I perceive the 9th Circuit as having. I would rather solve the problem of economic bias, but the first step is always identifying it.
However, I draw a pretty bright line between this suit and private lawsuits. Frankly, I am aghast that players (or, ex-players (looking at you Estate Of Maris) don't have the right to sue other players based on steroid violations. there is definitely a commercial unfairness going on and it should be redressed by the people who are being injured, rather than the government. A civil suit is a lot less governmentalicious than a criminal investigation and is the correct remedy for the professional cheating that is going on here (and has been for some time).
Which is why I find Sullum's complaint valid, but a bit exaggerated. Sure government shouldn't be snooping through these books, BUT people who are making less money than they otherwise would because of the steroid use SHOULD be snooping thru the books and many of these same discovery issues would come up.
As some have pointed out on other threads, baseball is treated differently because it is a regulated monopoly and has been for a long time. Part of that probably means that the players don't get to sue their employer the way they otherwise would. Now I would rather see them revoke MLB's privileged monopoly status, break the darn thing into 4 independent leagues and see some competition in baseball leagues. Short of that, it doesn't bug me too, too much to see federal investigators doing what cheated employees would be doing in any normal business environment.
I wonder if the 9th cir. has even read the 4th amendment.
I am going with "yes."
http://tinyurl.com/yhjgkb
The moneyquote is at the very end of the decision. it is my soundbite of the year for 2006.
jb | January 3, 2007, 10:52am | #
It's almost certainly old-fogy judges who said "computers? We don't understand 'em! The stuff's all in one database, that means you can't separate it, right?"Techno-idiocy is a threat to our freedoms on every level.
VM | January 3, 2007, 11:15am | #
JB: how about Dave W-idiocy is a threat to laughing so hard at him that you spray coffee everywhere?Look out! Corn syrup! ohno! Did Clive Barker and Julia Child have a love child?
He's such a pathetic joke. He's the intellectual equivalent of Sosa in right.