Corbett's lawsuit: A frivolous filing
Published: Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013, 12:38 p.m.
P.U., what's that smell? If you answered the bizarre, counterintuitive and politically buffoonish federal antitrust lawsuit filed against the NCAA for its sanctions against Penn State University by Gov. Tom Corbett, go to the head of the critical thinking class.
Six months ago, the governor supported the “serious penalties imposed” by the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the aftermath of Jerry Sandusky's horrid serial child molestations as “part of the corrective process.” Remember it was Mr. Corbett who, as state attorney general, began the Sandusky probe.
But on Wednesday, he reversed course, bypassing his hand-picked, soon-to-depart Republican attorney general and the incoming Democrat AG to hire crony counsel to prosecute a case in which the commonwealth has no standing.
Worse, the lawsuit announcement looked like one of those icky Barack Obama staged press events with nearly three dozen people props standing behind him.
Indeed, Pennsylvania taxpayers give millions of dollars in annual subsidies to PSU. But as legal scholar and former judge Andrew Napolitano notes (and he's far from alone), the only entity with legal standing is PSU itself and its trustees, the university's legal controlling authority. PSU officials accepted the NCAA sanctions. Corbett, himself a PSU trustee, should know better.
Just because you don't like something does not give you legal standing to sue, Judge Napolitano said on Fox News.
So, what's going on here? Populist pandering in pursuit of higher approval ratings that have been sagging? Political gamesmanship to blunt the promised investigation into the handling of the Sandusky case by an incoming AG of another party?
No matter what the case, here's to the court dismissing this exercise in extra-legal frivolity.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ObamaCare: HIT’s hit
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- The Thursday wrap
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saturday essay: A special tinsel
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Corrections reinvention