Well to be honest, I think Donald Sterling did deserve to be punished, but I'm not sure if Silver really has the power to take away Sterling's team though. I know the constitution doesn't protect you from losing your job if you say something controversial. However, I'm not sure if it means that the nba, government, or whoever can take away something you legally own because of what you said. I know the NBA rules say that the commissioner has the power to do that with a 2/3 vote from the other owners, but I'm pretty sure the government laws supercede those. I think Mark Cuban said it best. He does deserve to be punished, and shouldn't be apart of the league if that's how he feels. However, it's kind of a slippery slope that the nba is trying to climb here.
Personally. I don't think he should be owning the clippers anymore. Not just because of what he said (although that's part of it), but mainly because it's already been proven by two different doctors that he's mentally incompetent at this point in his life. His own wife is claiming that he might be suffering from dementia, so he may not have total control over what he's saying, or he might be oblivious to it. Medically speaking, a man that's suffering from dementia allegedly isn't fit to run an nba franchise.
My biggest issue with all this is that if Sterling is getting punished this badly for what he said, then I don't see why Jay Z didn't receive the same damn punishment in return. Plus, Jay Z doesn't have any mental illnesses that would lead one to believe he's mentally incompetent; whereas Sterling does, so we can't ignore the possibility that he might not be fully aware of what's going on around him.
I know some people that I've talked to about this did bring up that Jay Z is an entertainer, and how he might've only been wearing the medallion to stir up controversy for his next album, but I don't really see that as an excuse to wear it to begin with though. Even if he was trying to stir up controversy for his next album, that still doesn't make it right.
Another person I talked to brought up the fact that Jay Z can't be a racist because he did own the Nets for a while alongside the majority russian owner, who happens to be white. To that I say..well by that same logic, then you argue that Sterling isn't either because he's dating a half black girl, and he works with black people on a daily basis. However, that doesn't prove anything. You can work with someone on a day to day basis, but it doesn't mean that person necessarily has to like you.
Like I told this same person, I used to work with a white guy that was probably the most racist person that I've ever met. He was always talking down to me like I was stupid, and talking crap about how whites were the superior race and all that. Eventually, I told him to f*** off, and leave me the hell alone because it was getting annoying listening him to talk like that on a day to day basis. Therefore, that kind proves my point that just because Jay Z used to run the Nets with a white owner, it doesn't mean anything. You don't have to like a person to do business with them on a day to day basis. Anyone who thinks otherwise is very naive about life in general.
As far as the OK Congressman goes, I'd be more worried about him than I would about Donald Sterling at this point. If anything, he should be the one that loses his position because he's actually in a position of power to help make changes within our government. whereas sterling, his limited range of power only affects one sports team in the nba that's usually overshadowed by the lakers.
0
