One of the things that frustrates traditional American sports fans about soccer is that a game can end in a tie. Well, it can even be worse.
The English are so allergic to tie breakers (in addition to being allergic to decent cooking) that for years, they didn’t allow for tie-breakers, even in knockout tournaments where a winner is necessary.
What was their solution? Replays.
If you didn’t have a winner, say in a match in the storied FA Cup, you’d simply schedule another match a few days later. In the 1975 FA Cup tournament, for example, it took Fulham FC four tries to beat Nottingham Forrest FC. Fulham ended up playing twelve games in five rounds of the tournament due to so many replays, which might explain why they lost the final to West Ham United. They were probably just tired.
That’s what we got on Section 2 of SB 1070 yesterday, a nil-nil draw and a not yet scheduled replay for later.
Take a look at the portions of the law that were struck down. They were all stricken because they were preempted by federal law. Section 2, despite being the one that generated the most ire from the opponents, didn’t fit into that argument. But supporters of 1070 who think of this as a win might want put away the champagne.
Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.
So, in other words, we don’t see how the preemption argument applies here. But, show us how you can enforce this thing and still make it constitutional. Given how hard this law would be to enforce without racial profiling, expect another challenge.
Still, the right is saying this is an unalloyed victory. Heck, they are demanding a medal for Russell Pearce for being such a swell guy.