[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Transcript Online

On 18 Oct 2002 at 22:14, Jolley wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:14:11 -0500
From:           	Jolley <tjolley@swbell.net>
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Transcript Online
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Organization:   	Southwestern Bell Internet Services
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I think the justices must have been very frustrated with S.G. Olson.

Yes I think so too...

> After repeated questions and run-around answers on what is a limit.

And listening to "COngress in its infinite wisdom can never do wrong and so the 
USSC should not even try to understand the wisdom of lawmaking..." would have 
left the USSC cold. Congress screws up and the USSC has ruled laws 
unconstitionional before...not shortly after the USA was formed too. So there's 
ample precedence...

> The justices finally paraphrase Olson's arguments just to see if he
> knows how to say a simple yes (or no).
> I like the remark from Justice O'Connor:
>   "But if we affirm here, is there any limiting principle
>    out there that would ever kick in?"
> Olson's reply sounded like a no.

The Supremes may try to find some limiting principle if they can...ruling a law 
unconstitutional is not to be taken lightly..but then neither is the wholesale 
bribery of congress by special interests to get the extension

> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > 
> > Very interesting reading. The Justices were discussing the issue with
> > Lessig, probing, exploring arguments, but with S.G. Olson, they were
> > almost antagonistic....as in "OK what's the limit. GIVE ME A LIMIT. IF YOU
> > CAN"T GIVE ME A LIMIT ONE DOES NOT EXIST" I think there is no question that
> > they Supremes are leaning towards Lessig, the question is one of Judicial
> > restraint and using the golden bullets.....
> >