Lsupimp

It’s tomorrow- on Gameday- Lainey Wilson will sing the announcement acoustically.

Indian mounds. They will get endless invites.

That's my kink. :pimp:

She had an issue with the cable company and missed Judge Judy and it activated her hormones and I don't know why y'all keep being so misogynistic because you hate womyn.

Free Corie Walsh!
Believe all womyn who are forced by their feelings to murder their children !
A man probably did it anyhow. fricking men.

A few points:

I believe it will be heard- it’s a near certainty. Sankeys ego must be protected at ALL costs - even burning down a member institution. But the SEC’s problem is pretty simple: LSU isn’t restraining them—the Louisiana court is. Calling the same dispute a First Amendment case doesn’t automatically give an Alabama judge authority to undo a Louisiana injunction. The procedural argument is real; saying the case is already dead is overstating it, baw.

Furthermore as I just told Tom on his X feed ( dude hates me because I’ve been challenged him and winning on every point ) -LSU can produce DOZENS of examples where they associated with conduct with no complaint that they now claim they do not agree with. This is selective enforcement-always against LSU.

In layman’s terms imho:

So Louisiana got there first and told the SEC, “You can’t punish LSU for using these players.” Then the SEC ran to federal court in Alabama and tried to repackage the same fight as a First Amendment case: “We’re not arguing eligibility; LSU is forcing us to associate with conduct we reject.” LSU’s response will be: “Cute wording, but you’re still asking an Alabama judge to undo what the Louisiana judge just protected.”

Then the post says LSU can argue: “Don’t create two courts giving opposite orders. The Louisiana case was first, it’s already much farther along, and the SEC’s Alabama lawsuit looks REACTIVE and PUNITIVE ” That is a legitimate argument under the Colorado River doctrine.

It’s a decent take imho but far from airtight. The Anti- Injunction parties solid. The SEC cannot just simply nullify an active state court injunction. But that doesn’t mean they can’t nullify it through other arguments. And I think that’s what the SEC does-they make a separate argument-and say “ this is a separate lawsuit”. The Louisiana case is primarily the athletes’ eligibility challenge against the NCAA/SEC. The Alabama case is the SEC asserting its own alleged federal constitutional right against LSU officials.

As for the frivolous “ first amendment “ bullshite- LSU wins this one imho with a s simple argument that sound like this : Letting LSU put two eligible players on the field doesn’t force Greg Sankey to endorse anything. The SEC can criticize LSU all it wants”. This is regulation of football conduct, not compelled speech.

Let’s ride.

quote:

---

clear
reasonable

---

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

A good LSU response to that would be something like:

This isn’t compelled speech or association—it’s regulation of competitive conduct. Nobody is forcing the SEC to endorse LSU’s position; the court is simply preventing the SEC from enforcing an allegedly UNLAWFUL eligibility rule.

RIP.