Maybe this gets done without a filibuster, since Holy Joe of Gang of 14 fame is down: Another member of the “Gang of 14”, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (search), D-Conn., told the Hartford Courant last Thursday that Roberts would be one of three picks he thought would not spark a talk-a-thon, or a filibuster. The less … Continue reading “Some Dems Praise Pick”
Maybe this gets done without a filibuster, since Holy Joe of Gang of 14 fame is down:
Another member of the “Gang of 14”, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (search), D-Conn., told the Hartford Courant last Thursday that Roberts would be one of three picks he thought would not spark a talk-a-thon, or a filibuster.
The less time I have to see Ralph Neas’ hair plugs on TV the better.
The fur is fixing to fly: “[Judge Roberts] is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue,” said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts. He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has … Continue reading “Roe was wrongly decided”
The fur is fixing to fly:
“[Judge Roberts] is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue,” said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.
He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court — but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.
That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush’s administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that “we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
Roberts won the case — Rust v. Sullivan — in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.
This is gonna be fun.
Judge John G. Roberts seems like a solid selection. Presumably Joy would take this place on the Appeals Court. We’ll see in 18 minutes or so. Apparently Bush has figured out that whoever he nominates, the peaceniks will filibuster and demonize, so he may as well go hard to the right.
Judge John G. Roberts seems like a solid selection. Presumably Joy would take this place on the Appeals Court. We’ll see in 18 minutes or so.
Apparently Bush has figured out that whoever he nominates, the peaceniks will filibuster and demonize, so he may as well go hard to the right.
The Supreme Court Nomination Blog is a good place to find information on Judge Clement. She appears to be very good on the Commerce Clause. More at Volokh, of course.
The Supreme Court Nomination Blog is a good place to find information on Judge Clement. She appears to be very good on the Commerce Clause.
More at Volokh, of course.
This is a awfully funny: You know, conservatives have lost a lot of 5-4 decisions over the past few years in the Supreme Court. Some have upset the Justices in the minority only slightly. Others, like Casey (which reaffirmed Roe on stare decisis grounds) and Stenberg (the partial-birth abortion case), have drawn eloquent and impassioned … Continue reading “Judicial Filibuster”
This is a awfully funny:
You know, conservatives have lost a lot of 5-4 decisions over the past few years in the Supreme Court. Some have upset the Justices in the minority only slightly. Others, like Casey (which reaffirmed Roe on stare decisis grounds) and Stenberg (the partial-birth abortion case), have drawn eloquent and impassioned cries of anguish from the dissenters.
Why should a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices be able to dictate that women can authorize their doctors to kill their mostly-born babies by stabbing them in the skull with a pair of scissors and sucking out their brains with a suction catheter?
The solution is obvious. Let’s give Scalia a filibuster, to be used only in rare occasions where he feels very strongly about a decision.
It’s only fair.
How can anyone argue with such logic?
I personally enjoyed Jeff Goldstein’s post on Sandra Day O’Connor prompted by Cathy Young’s commentary on the following bit of foolishness from the pen of Dahlia Lithwick. Yes, that’s quite a route. UPDATE: Here’s Ms. Heather’s opinion. July 2, 2005 Robed in Mystery By DAHLIA LITHWICK Charlottesville, Va. IN the fall of 1992, Justice Sandra … Continue reading “A case of the vapors”
I personally enjoyed Jeff Goldstein’s post on Sandra Day O’Connor prompted by Cathy Young’s commentary on the following bit of foolishness from the pen of Dahlia Lithwick. Yes, that’s quite a route. UPDATE: Here’s Ms. Heather’s opinion.
July 2, 2005
Robed in Mystery
By DAHLIA LITHWICK
Charlottesville, Va.
IN the fall of 1992, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor spoke to my first-year law school class at Stanford University, her alma mater. My class, which was almost 50 percent women – black, Hispanic, gay and disabled women among them – received her warmly. She is, after all, a feminist pioneer. The first woman on the United States Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor broke through glass ceilings the way women of my generation broke nails. She, more than any other woman in the legal profession, proved that we could be whatever we wanted.
Continue reading “A case of the vapors”
Glib & Superficial and Orin Kerr note rumors of a Rehnquist resignation tomorrow.
Glib & Superficial and Orin Kerr note rumors of a Rehnquist resignation tomorrow.
This is a very interesting summary of the votes on today’s Supreme Court decisions. Before you look at it, guess which justices were most frequently in the minority and which were most frequently in the majority. That tells you who the radical justices are.
This is a very interesting summary of the votes on today’s Supreme Court decisions. Before you look at it, guess which justices were most frequently in the minority and which were most frequently in the majority. That tells you who the radical justices are.
Sure enough, the flower-power people are stompin’ mad over the Grokster deal, calling it “thought crime” and the end of the world: “Today the Supreme Court has unleashed a new era of legal uncertainty on America’s innovators,” said Fred von Lohmann, EFF’s senior intellectual property attorney. “The newly announced inducement theory of copyright liability will … Continue reading “Grokster”
Sure enough, the flower-power people are stompin’ mad over the Grokster deal, calling it “thought crime” and the end of the world:
“Today the Supreme Court has unleashed a new era of legal uncertainty on America’s innovators,” said Fred von Lohmann, EFF’s senior intellectual property attorney. “The newly announced inducement theory of copyright liability will fuel a new generation of entertainment industry lawsuits against technology companies. Perhaps more important, the threat of legal costs may lead technology companies to modify their products to please Hollywood instead of consumers.”
The thing is, the consumer isn’t locked in to some death battle with Hollywood; as long as Hollywood has reasonable protections, they’ll release lots of programming in MPEG format, and if they don’t they won’t. So we all benefit from the balance struck by the court in their unanimous Grokster decision. Here’s the way Cardozo law professor Susan Crawford put it:
Today’s Grokster opinion is a victory for content AND for technology. I was afraid that Sony would be undermined — and it wasn’t. The content guys were afraid that they wouldn’t be able to go after bad guys — and they’ve been given ammunition. What we’ve got is an opinion that is balanced and middle-of-the-road. It leaves Sony’s “substantial noninfringing use” standard alone (yes, the concurring Justices snipe back and forth about what that standard means, but that doesn’t matter), it doesn’t adopt any formless Aimster balancing test, and it says strongly that you can’t impute intent to technology. A good day for innovation. And a good day for Congressional staff, who won’t have to deal with some request for Induce legislation — we’re done.
And if you don’t think the whole purpose of Grokster was theft, I want some of what you’re smoking.
Here are a few relevant links:
* Wall St. Journal rountable
* Copyfight
* How Appealing
* SCOTUSblog, and here‘s their Grokster post.
* Ernest Miller’s blog, where you’ll find several posts:
I can’t stress enough that a unanimous Supreme Court issued a victory for the rule of law. The other parties in this case created systems that were made for the purpose of facilitating copyright infringment, the taking of music and movies. Taking from the people who put their sweat into making things we enjoy. The constitution protects this, It is in the constitution because they knew we needed this incentive to create something that we might all enjoy. This is a ruling that everyone who creates music, books are entitled to protection under the Constitution. When people create a product to help people take this content, they will be liable for it. All nine justices agree with this principle.
* Freedom to Tinker
The full text of the Supreme Court’s Grokster ruling (PDF, 55 pages).
No comment yet from Lessig, but Gillmor and Blankenhorn are miserable. Here’s Gillmor:
The Supreme Court has given the entertainment cartel and emerging broadband duopoly just what they wanted. You, and innovation, lost.
The high court said that Grokster and other file-sharing companies can be sued if their products are designed for copyright infringement and don’t have safeguards to protect copyrighted material.
And here’s Blankenhorn:
With this decision — a unanimous decision as opposed to the 6-3 Betamax ruling — I guarantee you the industry’s lawyers will try and turn this into open season on the Internet.
So it’s either the dawn of a new era of innovation, or the end of the world. Or maybe it’s just same-old, same-old.
Scrappleface cracks me up: (2005-06-27) — In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain. Hah.
Scrappleface cracks me up:
(2005-06-27) — In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain.
Hah.
