[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] O'Connor quoted at USA Today from Eldred oral argument
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
- In-reply-to: <FD101AA9-DBAB-11D6-8F55-003065F24232@ponymail.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
"I can find a lot of fault with what Congress did," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
said. "This flies directly in the face of what the framers of the Constitution
had in mind, but is it unconstitutional?"
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2002-10-09-net-copyright_x.htm
I would tend to view the above as somewhat positive, although clearly it
doesn't shut the door. O'Connor is often the swing vote on 5-4 decisions.
I'm really curious to hear what Scalia thought. As a textualist, I would hope
he would be able to see that allowing one retro-active extension would also
allow repeated retro-active extensions which would allow unlimited duration
which is facially invalid.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com