Slashdot Mirror
Grokster Wins Big in Ninth Circuit
The Importance of writes "Grokster has won big in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the decision: [PDF]. It is a very strong decision, basically bringing the Sony-Betamax decision into the modern age. Of course, the decision does make it clear that if Congress wants to change the law, they can (cough*INDUCE Act*cough). Read the whole thing, the actual opinion is only 18 single-column pages. See also, commentary from Jason Schultz, Ernest Miller, Cory Doctorow, and Ed Felten. And don't forget to thank EFF."
-they (conservatives) would love to jump on this decision as more proof of how 'out of touch' the 9th circuit is: disagree I've yet to hear a conservative pundit blast the 9th circuit just randomly... the criticism is usually associated with a specific (or collection of) rulings
Of course you haven't heard random attacks. They're not dumb. They pick and choose their attacks carefully to build up the 9th Circuit boogeyman. The 9th is another in a long line of conservative enemies, such as Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson, who they use as foils to get their listeners excited and pumped up. They don't randomly attack, they carefully choose what they report to increase the apparent differences.
but somehow they must restrain from criticising the 9th, because "upset their faux populist image to come out so loudly in favor of the corporations that support them": strongly disagree You think that the movie/music/entertainment industry supports the conservatives in this country?
No, I do not, not for a second, and if I implied as much then I apologize for not communicating my point well. I think the corporate interests that prop up Limbaugh, "Cock" Hannity, et. al., and who would outlaw, destroy, or kill much of the Hollywood community given the chance are fascist media billionaires such as Rupert Murdoch, Sun Yung Moon, and Richard Mellon Scaife.
original:
If the 9th Circuit were truly activist they would have caved in to the demands of MGM and the others and issued a ruling inconsistent with present statuory law, creating new positive law from the bench.
your explanation.
By activist I believe he means that usually, instead of ruling on the law, they create new law through their rulings.
Sounds the same to me... you are both saying "activist court" = courts which create new law.
original:
This court is not activist, it is merely more liberal than many courts, just as the 4th Circuit is more conservative than most.
you:
If this means they are more "liberal", we definatly don't need any more of these types of judges around.
??
You must be advocating activist judges.
The original poster said that the 9th Circuit court is NON-ACTIVIST, but they are liberal.
Are you saying, that if being a NON-ACTIVIST judge means being a liberal judge, then we dont need any more of those (non-activist) judges?
Perhaps you would be in favor of just putting Mr. activist President Dubya Bush in charge of the judiciary. That could save enough money to finance some additional cages at guantanimo or other offshore locations presumed to be beyond reach of the law. And as an additional benefit no one would bother suing Cheney to disclose what he and his energy conglomerate friends have been planning for the american suckers, I mean people, behind closed doors, because with Dubya in charge of the new conservative activist judiciary, Cheney and Bush could simply meet at work, to discuss the verdict rather than having to go on a fishing trip to discuss the case.
Of course the activist house may still go against the wishes of America,(read: wishes of Dick Cheney), and then.. well... don't think we don't know who you are. We are watching everything.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The 9th circuit is about the only court left with any sanity.
Unfortunately a dude who wrote one of the torture memos is now on the court thanks to Bush.
You should take the US-Australia free trade agreement as an example of why you should worry about US laws ... nah. We're more interested in US trade balance and have rightly concluded that the US needs the World more than the World needs the US.
Thus, all we have to do is say "nah" to the US, duck when the bombs fall and live out this age of fascist tyranny.
it's in my head