SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Shbobdb posted:

Knowing some people who have been hosed over because big business was able to ignore their patents and drop more cash than they could ever afford in court, I agree that the patent system is broken. But in the face of financial coercion, I don't think the right answer is to let the free market work it out.

Make the use of private lawyers illegal in patent law. Both sides get a lawyer (one) appointed to them. Adjust corporate taxes to pay for the national service. Create STAGGERING fines to punish anyone found to be practicing patent fraud/trolling/sweeping, with some kind of legal magic to extract payment as controlling shares if it is a large public company.

Bang. No more "I win because I am rich" and no more "I sue because its worth the roulette wheel game where I hope the judge uses iShit products and sides with me".

(Obviously this is a rough and sarcastic sketch, but the general message comes across.)

(They also need to stop allowing easy patents on "innovation" as opposed to "invention".)

# ¿ Dec 7, 2013 20:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 23:21

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Omelette du Fromage posted:

My god, I can't imagine how much more overworked the 9th is compared to the 10th.

Looks like the 10th should be dissolved into the 5th.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2013 20:57

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Arcturas posted:

The Ninth's size has been a recognized problem for a while now. There's just not a great solution because of California. Really it's big enough that it would normally make sense to split it off into its own circuit, but nobody really wants to have the "all-california" circuit, so you have to decide who to leave in with it, and what to do with Hawaii and Alaska and gently caress it just appoint more judges and walk away slowly.

Why would CA be a problem? TX essentially has its own circuit. Some of the smaller ones on the east coast are less important demographically then CA by itself.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2013 21:24

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

So this was just upheld as ok by a federal judge who wanted to back up Obama:

https://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

quote:

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/12/gadget-border-searches-2/

quote:

A federal judge today upheld a President Barack Obama administration policy allowing authorities along the U.S. border to seize and search laptops, smartphones and other electronic devices for any reason.

The decision (.pdf) by U.S. District Judge Edward Korman in New York comes as laptops, and now smartphones, have become virtual extensions of ourselves, housing everything from email to instant-message chats to our papers and effects.

I assume that will end up eventually being another 5-4.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2014 15:27

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Kalman posted:

the case isn't going to be about the 100 mile range (that one already got litigated and lost.)

How did they defend that?

(Aside from the quiet cackle that it basically de-righted 2/3rds of the population with a barely-crafty excuse, and that privacy is a thorn in Obamas drone-loving side?)

# ¿ Jan 1, 2014 23:24

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

They can only border search at borders and international airports http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6933260753627774699

I skimmed it until the footnotes, but this jumped out at me regarding the tone:

quote:

Since neither this Court's automobile search decisions nor its administrative inspection decisions provide any support for the constitutionality of the stop and search in the present case, we are left simply with the statute that purports to authorize automobiles to be stopped and searched, without a warrant and "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States." It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution. But under familiar principles of constitutional adjudication, our duty is to construe the statute, if possible, in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

"You are not allowed to do this, but we will try to find a way to allow it"?

# ¿ Jan 2, 2014 05:10

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

ACLU put this up:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights-constitution-free-zone-map

# ¿ Jan 18, 2014 10:51

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

ayn rand hand job posted:

Didn't you post this in this thread in the last page?

Sorry you dont like pictures Ayn.

I think given the last several decades that the hyperbole is worth using because it does not seem likely to remain hyperbole forever.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Jan 18, 2014 19:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 7, 2024 23:21

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Chokes McGee posted:

The latter. I would think the closest to reality "judicial activism" can come is just making things up whole cloth on the fly, which I think only includes Scalia.

Several of the SCOTUS members seem like they can can be predicted based on topic and the private interests involved. Clarence is never going to stop using his position to further his personal preferences.

Or to highlight it another way:

quote:

Both Justices Steven Breyer and Clarence Thomas had conflicts of interest in the case � Breyer�s brother was the District Court judge on the case, while Thomas was corporate counsel for Monsanto earlier in his career, but only Breyer saw fit to recuse himself.

Similar to the Citizens United case where Clarence's wife's income would be increased by his decisions, and he saw no problem jumping right in that one.

Thomas is as big a piece of poo poo as Scalia. He's just less loud about it.

quote:

Common Cause President Bob Edgar cites appearances by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia at retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, a corporation run by two major Republican donors who helped finance some of the new GOP groups founded after the ruling.

�It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,� the Common Cause petition asserts.

In addition, Common Cause argues that Thomas should have recused himself because his wife was the founder of Liberty Central, a conservative group funded with a small group of anonymous donors who endorsed candidates in about a dozen 2010 races.

It�s unknown whether those donors are corporations or individuals, but Virginia Thomas said publicly that she�d accept corporate money in light of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2014 06:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?