SCOTUS rulings and replacements Re: [extropy-chat] finding old (and new) sf

[Joseph Bloch]

Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Joseph Bloch wrote:
>
>> One word of caution to those who might be interested in doing the 
>> same; with the recent SCOTUS rulings about copyright and such, it 
>> might be worthwhile to retain some sort of proof of right to own such 
>> digital copies.
>>
>> I will probably be keeping the covers in a box, against the day the 
>> Copyright Enforcers come to my door.
>
>
> What SCOTUS ruling is that Joseph ?
>

One media mention of many can be found at 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375955/

Not that it is directly applicable, since it deals with file sharing and 
not digitalizing of written works, but it does demonstrate a growing 
hostility of the Court to copyright infringement in the digital realm. I 
just don't want to be caught with my pants down, so to speak.

> I'm boning up my Australian-based understanding of the SCOTUS, now
> that Sandra Day O Connor has retired and President G W B will get a 
> shot at first her replacement and then likely, pretty soon given his 
> health
> and age, Rehquirst's) ?


It's more than a "shot"; GWB will nominate a replacement, and the Senate 
judiciary committee will vote on him or her. If that nominee is voted 
down, GWB will name another, and so on. Ditto for a replacement for 
Rehnqist, although I personally think he won't retire until a 
replacement for O'Connor has been confirmed. Either way, President Bush 
nominates the successor; if his first choice isn't confirmed, he just 
keeps nominating someone until they are confirmed.

The REAL question is whether President Bush's candidate will be so 
conservative as to trigger a showdown with a Democrat filibuster, or 
moderate enough to avoid it and still not disaffect his conservative 
base. We won't know that until July 8th, when he gets back from the G8 
Summit and makes his nominee known.

>
> Also, when reading about possible replacement justices I see that liberal
> and conservative are talked about as if those categories are opposites.
> Is that the case in the US?


Indeed it is. In popular parlance (in the context of the Federal 
judiciary), liberal tends to mean willing to freely interpret the 
Constitution according to modern needs and mores (the "living 
Constitution"), while conservative means tending to a much stricter and 
more literal reading of the Constitution as written ("original intent").

Naturally, there is a lot of gray between those two poles, and a lot of 
specific implications in case-law dependent on both labels (to use as an 
example the hot-button issue that will certainly define the battle; 
conservatives generally don't recognize the "right to privacy" that Roe 
v. Wade established which made state prohibition of abortion 
unconstitutional, while liberals see it as a natural consequence of the 
10th Amendment).

With the political climate in Washington so polarized, so partisan, and 
so vicious (on both sides), the confirmation of O'Connor's replacement 
promises to be great political theater any way it goes.

Hope that helps.

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal": 
http://www.humanenhancement.com
New Jersey Transhumanist Association: http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta
PostHumanity Rising: http://transhumanist.blogspot.com/ (updated 6/14/05)