US Supreme Court Decisions

[Blackadar]

It's about time they made some rulings on some pretty interesting cases. USA Today had a good write-up about some of the key ones (and my off-the-cuff view - I have a limited understanding of each of the cases involved and therefore reserve the right to change my mind or add additional supporting information in the future):

McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky; Van Orden v. Perry - Do displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses and on a monument at the Texas Capitol amount to impermissible government promotion of religion?

My view: The Kentucky ones were put up in 1999 and as a promotion of religion - they should probably be taken down. The Van Orden v. Perry is a Texas monument that's been there since 1961. Because of its age, I'd say it is more historical in nature and therefore allowed to stay.

Gonzales v. Raich - Does U.S. anti-drug law override state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana to relieve a patient's pain?

My view: It's grown, sold, bought and used within the State of California. I don't see where the Federal Government has any right to enforce their laws on this issue. It's clearly not interstate commerce.

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. - May a city use its eminent domain power to condemn private property that is not in a blighted area and that would be turned over to private economic development?

My view: This is an issue that really strikes a nerve. I believe eminent domain should be curtailed. This kind of use is garbage - it's a simple taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. Often done under the pretense that the City/County will get more taxes in the long run, it's the taxpayers that foot the bill if things don't plan out.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster - Can Internet file-sharing services be held liable under U.S. copyright law for users who illegally download music and movies?

My view: No. Grokster hasn't done anything wrong and it's not their job to enforce the law. All they are doing is providing a service to allow users to share files - what is shared is never stored nor touched by Grokster - and they shouldn't have to control the shared files. The software and business implications of this could be devestating. It opens up/expands a whole new area of product liability. I really hope that Metro-Goldwyn loses big-time.

Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales - Is an individual's right to due process violated if a police department fails to enforce a judge's protection order without meaningful consideration or explanation? The case involves a woman whose three daughters were killed by her husband.

My view: Interesting and sad case. The short of it is that her 3 daughters were killed by her ex-husband when she had a restraining order against him. The police didn't enforce the order at all, so now she's suing them. It sounds like in this particular instance, the police were extremely negligent. But you also don't want a flood of lawsuits. I'd like to see a *very* tailored verdict that could only apply to this case.

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line - Does the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that protects the disabled from discrimination in public places and transportation, cover cruise ships that operate under foreign flags but stop in U.S. waters?

My view: I would hope not. I like the intent of ADA, but the execution has been horrid. I was working in the pay telephone industry at the time it was passed and it cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to have to go back and retrofit payphones for ADA compliance. Again, I agree with the intent of the law but the actually execution was extremely poor. I don't want to see bad USA laws now applied to foreign companies. If it's that much of an issue, get Congress to specifically target cruise ships to provide access.

[st.cronin]

You may want to rethink your logic on the 10 Commandments issues. The 10 Commandments themselves have significant historical import, being the basis for laws in numerous nation states, and being the foundation for moral law in two major world religions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just for the heck of it, I decided to compare my hopes for these cases with Blackie's. I figure if we're on the same side of any of these, then it's gotta be a slam dunk that we're right . And I said hopes, not expectations nor any sort of legal opinion.

Let's see here ... I'm pulling for the Ten Commandments display in all cases, pulling for the Feds hard on the marijuana case, I'd have to see the specifics of the eminent domain case to pick a side firmly but in general I support the use of e.d. powers, I'm hoping MGM wins everything down to Grokster's surge protectors.

So far, pretty predictable, but ... we agree on the hoped for outcome on the ADA case . And on the restraining order, we agree on this specific case while disagreeing on the bigger picture (I'd say that failing to at least attempt to enforce an order like that is dereliction of duty in all circumstances & thereof should be a fairly broad ruling here).

So, since we agree on those two, my guess is that those will be the two most predictable rulings -- we'll get screwed on both of them.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You may want to rethink your logic on the 10 Commandments issues. The 10 Commandments themselves have significant historical import, being the basis for laws in numerous nation states, and being the foundation for moral law in two major world religions.

That's nice but obviously my point escaped you. It's all in the intent of the display. If they were displayed for "being the foundation for moral law in two major world religions", then the display is an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional. If they were displayed as having "significant historical import", then they aren't an establishment of religion and therefore are constitutional.

The Kansas case is particularly interesting. They were originally put up as an establishment of religion - there's little debate about this. After 7 individuals sued - after the suit was established, the county went back and tried to make them part of a larger display by putting in other legal and historical documents around it. So there's a number of questions (the below taken from the Duke University law site):

1. Whether the Establishment Clause is violated by a privately donated display on government property that includes eleven equal size frames containing an explanation of the display along with nine historical documents and symbols that played a role in the development of American law and government where only one of the framed documents is the Ten Commandments and the remaining documents and symbols are secular.
2. Whether a prior display by the government in a courthouse containing the Ten Commandments that was enjoined by a court permanently taints and thereby precludes any future display by the same government when the subsequent display articulates a secular purpose and where the Ten Commandments is a minority among numerous other secular historical documents and symbols.
3. Whether the Lemon test should be overruled since the test is unworkable and has fostered excessive confusion in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
4. Whether a new test for Establishment Clause purposes should be set forth by this Court when the government displays or recognizes historical expressions of religion.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's nice but obviously my point escaped you. It's all in the intent of the display. If they were displayed for "being the foundation for moral law in two major world religions", then the display is an establishment of religion and therefore unconstitutional. If they were displayed as having "significant historical import", then they aren't an establishment of religion and therefore are constitutional.

My point is that in any case imaginable, either argument could be plausibly made, so using that logic settles nothing.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just for the heck of it, I decided to compare my hopes for these cases with Blackie's. I figure if we're on the same side of any of these, then it's gotta be a slam dunk that we're right . And I said hopes, not expectations nor any sort of legal opinion.

Let's see here ... I'm pulling for the Ten Commandments display in all cases, pulling for the Feds hard on the marijuana case, I'd have to see the specifics of the eminent domain case to pick a side firmly but in general I support the use of e.d. powers, I'm hoping MGM wins everything down to Grokster's surge protectors.

So far, pretty predictable, but ... we agree on the hoped for outcome on the ADA case . And on the restraining order, we agree on this specific case while disagreeing on the bigger picture (I'd say that failing to at least attempt to enforce an order like that is dereliction of duty in all circumstances & thereof should be a fairly broad ruling here).

So, since we agree on those two, my guess is that those will be the two most predictable rulings -- we'll get screwed on both of them.

You're probably right on the getting screwed thing. And I'd agree that grossly failing to enforce the order is dereliction of duty...but you also have to be very careful to not open a flood of lawsuits. Accident at a busy and semi-dangerous intersection? Sue the city. Release a criminal who then holds up a 7-11? Sue the city. It's the taxpayer that ultimately would pay the cost. A broad ruling here could potentially really financially hurt (even bankrupt) citizens by causing tax rates to skyrocket to pay damages and pay the enormous insurance premiums.

For someone who often professes State's Rights and personal responsibility, you seem to really side with Big Government and Big Business on the CA drug, eminent domain and the MGM/Grokster cases. Interesting disconnect...

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My point is that in any case imaginable, either argument could be plausibly made, so using that logic settles nothing.

It's all in the context and intent of the display. Much like the context of free speech/expression vs. obscene speech/expression.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's see here ... I'm pulling for the Ten Commandments display in all cases, pulling for the Feds hard on the marijuana case, I'd have to see the specifics of the eminent domain case to pick a side firmly but in general I support the use of e.d. powers, I'm hoping MGM wins everything down to Grokster's surge protectors.

I thought you were a republican/conservative? Do you guys no longer back states rights and individual property rights?

Scary how much you support government control.

[albionmoonlight]

FWIW, the interesting cases always tend to come out late in the term because, as you would expect, those take the longest to write and tend to have the most involved dissents, etc.

The 9-0 we all agree cases tend to be early in the term.

[Arles]

I'll throw in my 2 cents as well.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky; Van Orden v. Perry - Do displays of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses and on a monument at the Texas Capitol amount to impermissible government promotion of religion?

My view: The Kentucky ones were put up in 1999 and as a promotion of religion - they should probably be taken down. The Van Orden v. Perry is a Texas monument that's been there since 1961. Because of its age, I'd say it is more historical in nature and therefore allowed to stay.

I agree on the Texas one, but I will be interested to hear what the court thinks about the ten commandments case. IMO, the ten commandments also have a great deal of historical value for our judicial system as many of the laws created in the country's inception were based loosely on them (and often referenced by the founders). There are certain religious relics that I would be in favor of removing, but I don't the see Ten Commandments as being in that group given their historical significance to the founding of our policies and laws.

Gonzales v. Raich - Does U.S. anti-drug law override state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana to relieve a patient's pain?

My view: It's grown, sold, bought and used within the State of California. I don't see where the Federal Government has any right to enforce their laws on this issue. It's clearly not interstate commerce.

I'm more interested in the federal issue on this as well - it may be an issue of a state law potentially violating a federal one. As to the medical marijuana issue, I think it is a bit of a slippery slope but if it can be proven to have medicinal benefits, I wouldn't be too upset to see it allowed in states that approve the measure - provided it's distribution doesn't violate any federal laws.

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. - May a city use its eminent domain power to condemn private property that is not in a blighted area and that would be turned over to private economic development?

My view: This is an issue that really strikes a nerve. I believe eminent domain should be curtailed. This kind of use is garbage - it's a simple taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. Often done under the pretense that the City/County will get more taxes in the long run, it's the taxpayers that foot the bill if things don't plan out.

This is one area where states tend to trample the rights of citizens. Farrah and I have seen situations where a state will condemn or redistrict land near private property it wishes to purchase in hopes of driving the value down, then swooping in to buy up the private property once that happens. My knee-jerk on this is that I hope the private citizen wins, but I don't know as much about the case to see whether or not the gov't of Conn acted appropriately.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster - Can Internet file-sharing services be held liable under U.S. copyright law for users who illegally download music and movies?

My view: No. Grokster hasn't done anything wrong and it's not their job to enforce the law. All they are doing is providing a service to allow users to share files - what is shared is never stored nor touched by Grokster - and they shouldn't have to control the shared files. The software and business implications of this could be devestating. It opens up/expands a whole new area of product liability. I really hope that Metro-Goldwyn loses big-time.

I think this is an interesting case. Grokster is allowing the method for which users can share copyrighted material without a license. Their sole intent seems to be allowing users to violate copyrights and I would think there would be some guidelines needed for this type of action. That said, I am not 100% sure on the legal liabilities but I know if my software was being shared across millions of computers without me making a dime I'd be pretty peeved.

Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales - Is an individual's right to due process violated if a police department fails to enforce a judge's protection order without meaningful consideration or explanation? The case involves a woman whose three daughters were killed by her husband.

My view: Interesting and sad case. The short of it is that her 3 daughters were killed by her ex-husband when she had a restraining order against him. The police didn't enforce the order at all, so now she's suing them. It sounds like in this particular instance, the police were extremely negligent. But you also don't want a flood of lawsuits. I'd like to see a *very* tailored verdict that could only apply to this case.

Agree here.

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line - Does the Americans with Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that protects the disabled from discrimination in public places and transportation, cover cruise ships that operate under foreign flags but stop in U.S. waters?

My view: I would hope not. I like the intent of ADA, but the execution has been horrid. I was working in the pay telephone industry at the time it was passed and it cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to have to go back and retrofit payphones for ADA compliance. Again, I agree with the intent of the law but the actually execution was extremely poor. I don't want to see bad USA laws now applied to foreign companies. If it's that much of an issue, get Congress to specifically target cruise ships to provide access.

Agreed as well. The ADA has become a major thorn for small businesses as well so anything that cuts into its jurisdiction is a good move from my standpoint. I can see its need in certain larger buildings/complexes, but it is being expanded beyond the intended scope when it was drafted (IMO).

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's about time they made some rulings on some pretty interesting cases. USA Today had a good write-up about some of the key ones (and my off-the-cuff view - I have a limited understanding of each of the cases involved and therefore reserve the right to change my mind or add additional supporting information in the future):

Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. - May a city use its eminent domain power to condemn private property that is not in a blighted area and that would be turned over to private economic development?

My view: This is an issue that really strikes a nerve. I believe eminent domain should be curtailed. This kind of use is garbage - it's a simple taking from the poor and giving it to the rich. Often done under the pretense that the City/County will get more taxes in the long run, it's the taxpayers that foot the bill if things don't plan out.

Couldn't agree with you more on this issue. In this specific case, I think it's especially abusive on behalf of the city.

[st.cronin]

My own views:

I say the 10 Commandments stay (and I think the court will agree)
I say let the Californians smoke their weed (and I think the court will agree)
I have no real opinion on eminent domain
I don't know anything about Grokster but stealing music is illegal and wrong and should be punished - there is no such thing as a free lunch
I don't think people should be suing police departments ... if there were bias I could see it, but negligence/incompetence ... ehhhh
I think ADA should not apply in those cases, but I suspect the court will disagree

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Arles

Agreed as well. The ADA has become a major thorn for small businesses as well so anything that cuts into its jurisdiction is a good move from my standpoint. I can see its need in certain larger buildings/complexes, but it is being expanded beyond the intended scope when it was drafted (IMO).

I find it funny because you are starting to see handi-cap parking spaces at truck stops and rest area/toll road plazas. Actually have been seeing them for a while now. I want to know who pushed for this, ADA fanatics? I want to know what disablity you can have that would qualify you for a placard but allow you to keep your CDL?


I have never seen a truck with handi-cap plates or a placard. Many times guys will avoid these spots to avoid tickets, which sucks because it is hard enough to find a place to park.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'll throw in my 2 cents as well.

I think this is an interesting case. Grokster is allowing the method for which users can share copyrighted material without a license. Their sole intent seems to be allowing users to violate copyrights and I would think there would be some guidelines needed for this type of action. That said, I am not 100% sure on the legal liabilities but I know if my software was being shared across millions of computers without me making a dime I'd be pretty peeved.

Amazing how much we agree, isn't it? Just one correction - Grokster's sole intent isn't allowing users to violate copyrights. It's providing a file sharing service - interestingly enough, that sharing is what the Internet was originally designed for. (hxxp://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml) Now while the majority of Grokster's use may be for illegal file sharing - but it does have legitimate uses. If MGM wins, ANY file-sharing networks would be liable for this traffic - and shut down the legitimate uses as well. I'm also concerned about the larger ramifications - if I create a modable FPS and someone creates a Star Wars mod using that software, can George Lucas sue me?

[BrianD]

Grokster is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. If Grokster is liable for its users sharing copyrighted material, then gun makers should be liable for their users shooting other people. Don't blame the tool.

[henry296]

I am not familiar with Grokster. Can you give me some examples of users sharing files for good purposes with Grokster's software?

[Bearcat729]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Use of Medical Marijuana

June 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback to the medical marijuana movement, ruling that federal narcotics laws make it a crime to grow and use the drug even when it never crosses state lines and is used only to relieve pain or nausea.

The justices today said Congress's power over interstate commerce is broad enough to let it ban locally grown and used medical marijuana. The 6-3 ruling, issued in Washington, overturns a lower court decision that had let two California women use cannabis to treat pain, nausea and other symptoms.

California and nine other states exempt seriously ill people from laws banning cultivation and use of marijuana. Today's ruling means people in those states nonetheless will face the risk of federal prosecution if they use or distribute marijuana.

The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.


To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected].

[John Galt]

A few of these opinions were handed down today. The most interesting to me was the marijuana case (6 to 3 for the feds).

As for those of you confused by JoninMiddleGA, I have no doubt that Jon is an "authoritarian" in his political beliefs. He believes liberals are evil and should be permanently marginalized, he believes in absolutes on almost every political question, and he supports any means (including "illegal" ones) to accomplish those absolutes. States rights are convenient only when they support the "right" outcome.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by henry296

I am not familiar with Grokster. Can you give me some examples of users sharing files for good purposes with Grokster's software?

I haven't used Grokster itself. But WoW uses a Bittorrent-like system to distribute patches. And I've used Bittorrent to get those patches myself when the Blizzard system is slow. I've used Bittorrent to share my son's baby pictures with my sister in Florida. I've shared non-copywrited stories and music via Kazaa (when I used Kazaa). I've also used Kazaa for mods for games, though I don't often download files due to viruses.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by henry296

I am not familiar with Grokster. Can you give me some examples of users sharing files for good purposes with Grokster's software?

It is the same with any of these programs (Grokster, Napster, Kazaa). Lots of unknown artists make their music, books, and movies available for sharing in hopes of getting their name out or being discovered.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I haven't used Grokster itself. But WoW uses a Bittorrent-like system to distribute patches. And I've used Bittorrent to get those patches myself when the Blizzard system is slow. I've used Bittorrent to share my son's baby pictures with my sister in Florida. I've shared non-copywrited stories and music via Kazaa (when I used Kazaa). I've also used Kazaa for mods for games, though I don't often download files due to viruses.

Red vs. Blue episodes were generally made available by the creators through Bittorrent as well. If you want to get something out to a lot of people but don't have the bandwidth to do it yourself, this is a good way to go.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Amazing how much we agree, isn't it? Just one correction - Grokster's sole intent isn't allowing users to violate copyrights. It's providing a file sharing service - interestingly enough, that sharing is what the Internet was originally designed for. (hxxp://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml) Now while the majority of Grokster's use may be for illegal file sharing - but it does have legitimate uses. If MGM wins, ANY file-sharing networks would be liable for this traffic - and shut down the legitimate uses as well. I'm also concerned about the larger ramifications - if I create a modable FPS and someone creates a Star Wars mod using that software, can George Lucas sue me?

OK, then I guess the best course of action would be to find IP's using the service for illegal sharing and do a "Napster-like" suit on random people. I agree that it would be a poor precedent to go after the service if it has no role in loading or downloading the copyright material.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Use of Medical Marijuana

June 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a setback to the medical marijuana movement, ruling that federal narcotics laws make it a crime to grow and use the drug even when it never crosses state lines and is used only to relieve pain or nausea.

The justices today said Congress's power over interstate commerce is broad enough to let it ban locally grown and used medical marijuana. The 6-3 ruling, issued in Washington, overturns a lower court decision that had let two California women use cannabis to treat pain, nausea and other symptoms.

This is sort of what I anticipated. If it is deemed that the state law violates a federal law, then there is little the court can do but throw it out. Seems like a change in the federal law is in order if people feel strongly about allowing this.

[Blackadar]

Bad decision by the Supremes on the pot. I don't see how homegrown, local pot that is distributed for free (no legal tender) and without crossing state lines can in any way be considered interstate commerce. And given that the Federal Law and the CA Law were in direct conflict and that this isn't a direct Bill of Rights or Constitutional conflict (from an individual's rights level) I don't see how or why the Federal Law would take precedence over State law here.

I.e.:

1. No interstate commerce clause should apply
2. No individual rights were being infringed by the State

So why does Federal law override State law? It's not like Prohibition since it's not an Amendment to the Constitution.

[Arles]

It's a tough case. I found this:

Justice John Paul Stevens (search), writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

I'm guessing there is some aspect of the case that triggers the federal law. But, given the California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines, I don't really know what that aspect is at first glance.

[Arles]

Don't like this one bit:

Court Expands Scope of Disabilities Law

By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 6, 2005; 11:12 AM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, expanding the scope of a landmark federal disabilities law, ruled Monday that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for passengers in wheelchairs.

The narrow 5-4 decision is a victory for disabled rights advocates, who said inadequate ship facilities inhibited their right to "participate fully in society."

Congress intended the 1990 American with Disabilities Act to apply to cruise lines, justices said.

"The statute is applicable to foreign ships in the United States waters to the same extent that it is applicable to American ships in those waters," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Still, the ruling is unclear how much the $2.5 billion foreign cruise industry, with two-thirds of its passengers Americans, will actually have to reconfigure pools, restaurants and emergency equipment for wheelchair accessibility, an upgrade that could cost the industry millions.

That's because Kennedy also writes that cruise lines need not comply with Title III of the ADA to the extent it creates too much international discord or disruption of a ship's internal affairs, under a provision of the statute that calls only for "readily achievable" modifications.

"It is likely that under a proper interpretation of 'readily achievable' Title III would impose no requirements that interfere with the internal affairs of foreign-flag cruise ships," Kennedy wrote, in sending the case back to lower court to determine what is required of cruise lines.

Three disabled passengers, who boarded Norwegian Cruise Line in Houston in 1998 and 1999, say they paid premiums for handicapped-accessible cabins and the assistance of crew but the cruise line failed to configure restaurants, elevators and other facilities in violation of the ADA.

Norwegian Cruise Line countered that only an explicit statement of Congress can justify imposing the U.S. law on a ship that sails under a foreign flag, even if it is docked at a U.S. port. The federal law is silent as to whether foreign cruise lines are covered by the ADA.

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that extending the federal law to foreign ships will create international discord and is wrong because Congress does not explicitly call for it. The ruling should leave no opening for ships to be required to change their amenities to fit the laws of each country they visit, he said.

Much of the industry registers its ships away from home countries in places such as the Bahamas, Liberia, Honduras, Panama and Cyprus, which promote the practice by pointing to their business-friendly regulatory outlooks. The U.S. cruise industry is almost exclusively foreign-flagged.

"Title III plainly affects the internal order of foreign-flag cruise ships, subjecting them to the possibility of conflicting international obligations," Scalia wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as well as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas.

The ruling has wide implications for the cruise industry, which fears the remodeling will cost it millions. The Bush administration and several state attorneys general backed the disabled passengers while the International Council of Cruise Lines supported Norwegian Cruise Line.

The case was an appeal from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans, which ruled in January that foreign-flag cruise ships are not covered by the ADA. Under the Supreme Court's decision, the disabled passengers which filed suit may now proceed to trial to prove they were discriminated.

Both the cruise lines and disability groups then urged the Supreme Court to take the case, noting a conflict with an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2000 that foreign ships must comply with the law.

After the 11th Circuit decision, several cruise lines settled lawsuits claiming ADA violations, while some voluntarily agreed to make their facilities more wheelchair-accessible.

The case is Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, 03-1388.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...600578_pf.html

[albionmoonlight]

I have not read the case yet, but not suprisingly, it relies heavily on Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Filburn held that a farmer could be punished for violating wheat quotas through growing too much wheat. The farmer in that case grew the wheat and consumed all of it himself. The Court held that this activity still affected interstate commerce because by growing his own wheat, the farmer ending up having to buy less wheat on the market--affecting supply and demand.

Agree or disagree with Filburn, but it is easy to see how this case follows it.

[digamma]

The medicinal marijuana case represents a rare occasion when Thomas and Scalia have not been on the same side of a decision.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Haven't read the marijuana decision yet, but did a patient's right to privacy, and doctor/patient confidentiality factor in to their decision at all?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

10 Commandments themselves have significant historical import, being the basis for laws in numerous nation states...

What nation states are those?

[Crapshoot]

Interesting topic Blackadar: My 2 cents.

Mcreary - clear violation of church/state - fundemental concept, and state's rights don't take precedence.

Gonzales vs Raich: Personal opinion ? Totally in favor of it - especially if it has medical values, and I believe the government should treat marijuana like cigaretts. On a legal level though , states laws contradicting federal laws set up some conundrums.

Kelo v New London: Torn - on the one hand, eminent domain seems unfair, and a gross disregard of property rights- on the other hand, there is an arguement for the neccessity of development. Overall, I'd go against it- or set the burden fairly high.

MGM v Grokster: Its the VCR arguement again, and its a technophobe, luddite-like view. A technology that can be used for illegal things does not expressly make the technology illegal. Else, lets apply the arguement to guns.

Castle Rock v Gonzales:
I'm inclined to agree with group consensus here- there are limits on what any department can do, though this case seems particularly egrarious.

Spector v Norwegian Cruise Line:
The intent is decent (all parties must operate under the same law) - but the action itself is flawed. If your beef is with the ADA, then the ADA should be reformed (which is where must of us seem to come from)- but it doesnt mean that one company should be subject to different rules.

On a side note, as much as I disagree with Jon, he's not a textbook conservative, and its hard to label him as such.

[Crapshoot]

dola, just saw the judgements. I agree with the ADA case (on a basis of law, not on the ADA itself), but the medical marijuana case was awful. From what albionmoonlight cited though, it does tend to follow - but only if marijuana is part of commerce, which it is not. The arguement of the farmer producing too much essentialy argues that he took himself out of the demand equation, and perverse as farm laws are, it makes sense on that basis.

[judicial clerk]

Gonzales v. Raich - Does U.S. anti-drug law override state laws that allow the medical use of marijuana to relieve a patient's pain?

My view: It's grown, sold, bought and used within the State of California. I don't see where the Federal Government has any right to enforce their laws on this issue. It's clearly not interstate commerce.

until recently, Everything effected interstate commerce. My dog farting could be regulated by the fed law b/c it effected interstate commerce.

The medicinal marijuana case represents a rare occasion when Thomas and Scalia have not been on the same side of a decision.

interesting.

[HomerJSimpson]

I'm so glad we are under the rule of Republican dictat...I mean, elected officials, which means we'll have smaller goverment and more freedoms. What? The goverment has become larger, more intrusive and restrictive under Republican rule? No! That couldn't be! Rush said it would be smaller! I've been tricked!

[larrymcg421]

Thomas and Scalia were not on the same side (for the most part) of the ADA case. Thomas only joined the first part of Scalia's dissent and sided with majority on most of the rest.

As for the marijuana case, it should be noted that Scalia concurred in the judgement but did not join the majority opinion. It was also interesting to see that it was Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter siding with the government and Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor siding with California. It fits there theories of law to be sure but the specifics of the case makes it interesting which side they ruled on. Mayba Scalia concurred with the majority judgment because he likes to smoke weed? I could see that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BrianD

It is the same with any of these programs (Grokster, Napster, Kazaa). Lots of unknown artists make their music, books, and movies available for sharing in hopes of getting their name out or being discovered.

And the other 99.99% is porn, bootlegged movies, and illegal mp3s

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Briefly, to answer a couple of questions asked in my direction earlier.

"States Rights" were murdered a long time ago. Nice theory, but one that died before I was ever born. Now it's just something that gets exhumed in order to be killed anew occasionally. With that in mind, I'd rather see the feds get it right than the state's get it wrong (whatever "it" we might be talking about, not just the one in play originally in this thread).

IIRC, the other question mentioned something about "personal responsbility" & how it reconciles with my usually authoritarian positions. That one is really easy to get, if I can word it properly while typing ... basically, the rule of "personal responsbility" is an ideal, but given the sad & sorry state of many elements of society, it cannot be trusted as the only limitation. And in cases where it fails or is on the brink of failure, then the rule of law must intervene.

(I fear I may have created more questions than I've answered, especially on the latter item, but at least I took a shot at explaining it).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And the other 99.99% is porn, bootlegged movies, and illegal mp3s

Bingo.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And the other 99.99% is porn, bootlegged movies, and illegal mp3s

SI

Which really doesn't matter since I was asked to name a legitimate current use...and I did.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Which really doesn't matter since I was asked to name a legitimate current use...and I did.

I can use a bomb (I'm thinking like the giant one in Goldfinger) as a table but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

SI

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can use a bomb (I'm thinking like the giant one in Goldfinger) as a table but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

SI

That really depends on your legal history, and compliance with proper marking, storage, and licensing restrtictions.

Do you really want to make things illegal just because of the way people use them? Should we outlaw CD/DVD burners, VCR/cassette tapes, scanners and computers because they are often used to reproduce copyrighted books, movies, and music?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That really depends on your legal history, and compliance with proper marking, storage, and licensing restrtictions.

Do you really want to make things illegal just because of the way people use them? Should we outlaw CD/DVD burners, VCR/cassette tapes, scanners and computers because they are often used to reproduce copyrighted books, movies, and music?

I think when the primary purpose, that which it is used for a majority of the time, of an item is illegal, yes. People using a VCR for personal use is not illegal and it's the primary purpose. People using a gun for hunting rather than shooting people is the primary use. The *overwhelming* majority of stuff traded on file serving networks is illegal.

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That really depends on your legal history, and compliance with proper marking, storage, and licensing restrtictions.

Do you really want to make things illegal just because of the way people use them? Should we outlaw CD/DVD burners, VCR/cassette tapes, scanners and computers because they are often used to reproduce copyrighted books, movies, and music?

Or my favorite, do we ban cars because sometimes people run them through a crowd or through the front of a building? How about vans and small trucks, since they are sometimes used to transport bombs, drugs, or any number of illegal things?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or my favorite, do we ban cars because sometimes people run them through a crowd or through the front of a building? How about vans and small trucks, since they are sometimes used to transport bombs, drugs, or any number of illegal things?

See above. Cars are not primarily used to run over people nor trucks to transport bombs. But don't let me get in the way of your straw man or whatever it's called when you come up with something so radically different than what I was saying and easily refute it.

SI

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think when the primary purpose, that which it is used for a majority of the time, of an item is illegal, yes. People using a VCR for personal use is not illegal and it's the primary purpose. People using a gun for hunting rather than shooting people is the primary use. The *overwhelming* majority of stuff traded on file serving networks is illegal.

SI

Do you really think more than 50% of all burned DVDs contain legally reproduced material?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Do you really think more than 50% of all burned DVDs contain legally reproduced material?

Yup. At least the ones for home use. Mass production devices might be a different story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can use a bomb (I'm thinking like the giant one in Goldfinger) as a table but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

Basically along the same lines that make "possession of burglar's tools" a crime in some states.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

See above. Cars are not primarily used to run over people nor trucks to transport bombs. But don't let me get in the way of your straw man or whatever it's called when you come up with something so radically different than what I was saying and easily refute it.

SI

And where are you getting your numbers on what percentage of the filesharing networks is used for illegal stuff? Anyone can throw around statistics.

And just because pirates have taken over those networks does not change the fact that they have a VERY legitimate purpose. Trucks can transport legal vs. illegal materials just as easily as a filesharing network can transport legal vs. illegal files.

All of this is coming from someone who personally believes that all those pirates illegally sharing music and videos should be held accountable and punished. But that doesn't mean the software they use should be made illegal.

Although I could see a case being made for forcing these companies to at least perform spot checks to remove illegal materials, the same way we have weigh stations for trucks, customs at the borders, and make E-bay and other auction sites pull down stuff that shouldn't be up there.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

See above. Cars are not primarily used to run over people nor trucks to transport bombs. But don't let me get in the way of your straw man or whatever it's called when you come up with something so radically different than what I was saying and easily refute it.

Here's the problem I have. Where do we draw the line? Who decides where we draw the line? What is a 'bad' use and what is a 'good' use? (Case in point in the last question: I argue that breaking DVD encryption to make a copy of a DVD for your personal use is acceptable. Recent laws have deemed it not.)

Outlawing things because they can be used for good/bad/ugly is asinine. ANYTHING can be put to an illegal/dangerous purpose. If there's a legitimate purpose for a tool, it should be legal, end of story. No, I don't consider a 500 pound bomb to have any legitmate purpose other than for blowing shit up.

Considering all these file sharing systems are leading/have lead to some better applications (BitTorrent anyone?), and DO in fact have legitimate purpose, outlawing them is absolutely a Bad Idea.

I hope this made sense. I'm digesting Culver's.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can use a bomb (I'm thinking like the giant one in Goldfinger) as a table but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

SI

Actually, you can damn well have dynamite for construction purposes and demolition - so out that goes. Try again. Banning technology is a classic case of trying to close the barn door after the cow has escaped.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And the other 99.99% is porn, bootlegged movies, and illegal mp3s

SI

Porn is not illegal, so it does not fall into the category of bootlegged movies or illegal MP3s, which are illegal copyright violations. Copyrighted porn movies would fall into the category of bootlegged movies. At one point, I would bet that more than 50% of all floppy disks were used illegally. They weren't banned. I would bet that 50% or more of all off-the-shelf blank DVD and CD-ROM sales are for illegal purposes. They're not banned either.