Title IX says give $10m of that $20m per school to women

[CL82]

Wouldn't that be the Court legislating from the bench?

Clearly, changing Title IX is the remedy if you don't like Title IX's regulations.

It depends. If the regulations were outside of the mandate provided in the original statute, then they are overreach by a federal agency and would be properly struck down if challenged. In essence overly expensive regulation is "legislation by agency" to paraphrase the language you use above.

 

[upstater]

It depends. If the regulations were outside of the mandate provided in the original statute, then they are overreach by a federal agency and would be properly struck down if challenged. In essence overly expensive regulation is "legislation by agency" to paraphrase the language you use above.

I still say that ruling any different than the memo would be the opposite of overreach. If you ignore the legislation, then you're making your own ruling outside the legislation.

This is precisely the reason why they've been trying to overturn the key provisions of Title IX so many times over so many years.

If they had more leeway they wouldn't have needed to pass new legislation to counter the regulations as it relates to funding. If you're a school that gets federal funding, you need to fund men and women equally.

 

[CL82]

I still say that ruling any different than the memo would be the opposite of overreach

This interpretation would give agencies, essentially unelected, bureaucrats supremacy over both Congress, and the judiciary. There are some countries where the state is this supreme authority unchecked by the judiciary or any elected representative body. Thankfully the US isn't one of them.

If you ignore the legislation, then you're making your own ruling outside the legislation.

This would pretty much be the point. If the agency goes beyond the scope of the legislation then it is making it on law which is impermissible in the US system.

 

[upstater]

This interpretation would give agencies, essentially unelected, bureaucrats supremacy over both Congress, and the judiciary. There are some countries where the state is this supreme authority unchecked by the judiciary or any elected representative body. Thankfully the US isn't one of them.

This would pretty much be the point. If the agency goes beyond the scope of the legislation then it is making it on law which is impermissible in the US system.

?????
The legislation says you have to equally fund.
If you ignore that, you're ignoring the legislation.

I don't want to make this political as you have in the first statement. There's no point in discussing politics here.

Let's stick to the legislation which says they have to be equally funded. If you diverge from that, you're doing your own thing.

Obviously this is true or they wouldn't have tried to rewrite the legislation multiple times in order to eliminate the equal funding provision.

 

[noeynox]

?????
The legislation says you have to equally fund.
If you ignore that, you're ignoring the legislation.

I don't want to make this political as you have in the first statement. There's no point in discussing politics here.

Let's stick to the legislation which says they have to be equally funded. If you diverge from that, you're doing your own thing.

Obviously this is true or they wouldn't have tried to rewrite the legislation multiple times in order to eliminate the equal funding provision.

If you did "revenue sharing" wouldn't that at all depend on what "revenue" each sport brought in?

 

[CL82]

?????
The legislation says you have to equally fund.
If you ignore that, you're ignoring the legislation.

I don't want to make this political as you have in the first statement. There's no point in discussing politics here.

Let's stick to the legislation which says they have to be equally funded. If you diverge from that, you're doing your own thing.

Obviously this is true or they wouldn't have tried to rewrite the legislation multiple times in order to eliminate the equal funding provision.

Not trying to be insulting but you have a fundamental lack of understanding of constitutional law.

 

[upstater]

If you did "revenue sharing" wouldn't that at all depend on what "revenue" each sport brought in?

No, because it is the university. You'd have to break out the bean counting and look at all subsidies for everything, buildings, food, dorms, stadiums, training, student fee, etc. The amount of inputs would be endless.

You could only avoid it if they became their own business.

 

[upstater]

Not trying to be insulting but you have a fundamental lack of understanding of constitutional law.

This is laughable. It's gone through the Supreme Court. I really dont think you know what you're talking about.

 

[CL82]

This is laughable. It's gone through the Supreme Court. I really dont think you know what you're talking about.

I'm sure you don't. Obviously your concept of administrative agency superiority over the legislature, and the judiciary is a unique one, well, at least unique in non-totalitarian states.

 

[upstater]

I'm sure you don't. Obviously your concept of administrative agency superiority over the legislature, and the judiciary is a unique one, well, at least unique in non-totalitarian states.

It's the opposite.

You're the one saying the agency should do whatever they want.

Quite frankly, you're lost.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

NIL is, theoretically, outside the scope of the school/athlete relationship. It shouldn't be within the scope of Title IX.

Is it NIL or revenue sharing that is in question?

 

[CL82]

It's the opposite.

You're the one saying the agency should do whatever they want.

Quite frankly, you're lost.

Lol, go back reread the posts and realize you're wrong. Or not. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

 

[CL82]

Is it NIL or revenue sharing that is in question?

Revenue sharing, but the post I responded to talked about NIL