Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's Cyberlaw Record

Hugh Pickens writes "Thomas O'Toole writes that President Obama's choice for Associate Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, authored several cyberlaw opinions regarding online contracting law, domain names, and computer privacy while on the Second Circuit. Judge Sotomayor wrote the court's 2002 opinion in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., an important online contracting case. In Specht, the Second Circuit declined to enforce contract terms (PDF) that were available behind a hyperlink that could only be seen by scrolling down on a Web page. 'We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms,' wrote Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion in a domain name case, Storey v. Cello Holdings LLC in 2003 that held that an adverse outcome in an administrative proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy did not preclude a later-initiated federal suit (PDF) brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). In Leventhal v. Knapek, a privacy case, Judge Sotomayor wrote for the Second Circuit that New York state agency officials and investigators did not violate a state employee's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched the contents of his office computer (PDF) for evidence of unauthorized use of state equipment. While none of these cases may mean much as far as what Judge Sotomayor will do as an Associate Supreme Court Justice 'if confirmed, she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court,' writes O'Toole."

Comments

Bigger question than her tech positions

[jmorris42]

Larry Summers was driven from polite society for a couple of years for the crime of asking whether it was desirable to broach the subject of whether there were basic differences between men and women. This bigot stands up and asserts there are fundamental differences between both the genders AND races[1] as if it were a settled fact and is on a fast track to the Supreme Court.

Just proves I really don't understand the progressive mind. I really wish you guys could settle what the rules are in such a way you could actually enumerate them in public. Which of course is exactly what will never happen because to speak them would give up the game as any sane person could only laugh.

[1] As a member of La Raza (The Race) and a good ivy league educated feminist she of course asserted that a latina is inherently superior to a white male.

Re:Bigger question than her tech positions

[jmorris42]

> By calling her a bigot, I assume that you are referring to her comment about Latinos...

That, several other choice quotes and several of her rulings. But that quote is almost enough to damn her by itself. She asserts that being a latina, in and of itself, makes her more likely to make good rulings than a white male. The belief that one race is superior to another has a word to describe it, racist. Her belief that a woman superior to a man also has a word, sexist. Put em together and you get bigot. That one quote she could call a mistake, do a mea culpa and skate by. Add in the whole litany and it adds up to a nasty bigot who doesn't even subscribe to the notion of blind justice. She doesn't say it is hard to achive, that we aren't achiving it, etc. By word and deed she makes it plain that she doesn't agree with the notion that blind justice is a worthy goal.

Sorry, my ideal Justice is not an emotion driven empath. Find me nine Vulcans and I'd say put em on the court and have done with it. It's called the Rule of Law and it is in direct opposition to her and Dear Leader's notion of the Rule of Men. I want laws that the people who must live under them can know the outcome of without needing a trail in 99% of cases. Our courts are clogged because nobody can predict the outcome, thus the incentive to roll the dice for the side with a weak case and the urge to settle anyway for the side with the stronger case. In a perfect world the lower courts, where they were judging instead of making policy, would be so in sync the Supreme Sourt would be bored.

Re:Bigger question than her tech positions

[jmorris42]

> ..talking about a world without prejudice is like the scientist saying "imagine a spherical cow...".

Not quite. The spherical cow is a simplification for ease of communicating a complex idea. The idea of blind justice is the goal we should be working toward, admitting that as imperfect humans we might never actually reach it. Having an unreachable goal is still useful in the same way as the cow though as an easy way to judge whether a new policy is wise or unwise by asking whether it moves toward or away from an easy to understand goal.

> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to gay people (this post

I'll keep this short to avoid going too far offtopic. The objection is to the attempt to conflate behavior choices with inate difference in the attempt to make 'gay rights' a civil rights issue. That way leads to madness on too many levels to do justice to here. Probably the biggest is that if we open Pandora's Box and declare some behaviours are protected it won't stop with just one. And once we accept the notion that people aren't able to control themselves the very concept of self government is not just absurd it is dangerous. That and the judicial activism involved in 'gay marriage' that swerves back on topic. I have far less objection to lawful attempts, i.e. I'd still vote/agitate against it but wouldn't overly object to losing the argument in a legislature or at the ballot box. Judges making law is wrong.

> You can either balance the equation by ensuring diversity,

Bad idea. I have less objection (there are more and less offensive methods) to the notion of encouraging diversity but 'ensuring' diversity is just code for quotas and I fail to see how you fight discrimination with discrimination. It's destroying the village to save it. It's either muddled thinking at work or more wicked intentions cloaked in lies.

> I'm no real fan of affirmative action. Was it necessary at one point? Maybe...

A good argument could be mounted that it creates at least as many problems as it solves. The reason we have made progress on these problems is we managed to change minds. Affirmative action blunts the moral arguments that changes minds and wastes a lot of time arguing over it. Even with the downsides, was it required to get the ball rolling? Reasonable people can argue it. Even if it was we should be working to get rid of it as fast as possible.

> After reading the whole piece, I think I understand what she was trying to say, but it wasn't a great way of saying it.

If it were her only incident perhaps. If she hadn't been reading prepared remarks it could be written off as a simple brain fart. But she has more of this stuff. But there is so much more, even from that same speech beyond the pull quote every news outlet is running with. She says there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." That sort of thing should be so far beyond the realm of polite conversation she should not only be disqualified from being elevated to the SCOTUS she should have been forced to retire from public life days from uttering the comments. Or at least have been forced to endure sensitivity training. (Equal treatement and all that.)

> I think I'm the sort of person you hate.

Only if you are a socialist/marxist/communist. And there it is more like implacable opposition. A burning hate causes one to make mistakes after all. Socialism is 180 degrees opposed to Truth Justice and the American Way and I take the view there is no point to compromising with em, finding common ground or any of that stuff. They are to be defeated and driven from the public debate.

Don't like her - bitch hates guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does she have any other qualifications besides having a vagina and being a minority?

Re:That's what she said

[faraway]

Life experiences mean everything when interpreting law. Alito: Have to Consider Life Experiences when Ruling Cases [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNfyZWnQVnQ].

Please stop being unrealistic every human judge uses their human experiences to interpret the law. Those experiences are usually what other people are referring to when using the word 'maturity'. Maturity comes through experience, and I would rather have a mature judge presiding over my case than an immature judge who just can't wait for the day to be over so s/he can go shoot some balls at the local golf course.

If you believe that judges do not use their personal beliefs whether they be 'conservative' of 'liberal' (or really just, human experience) I'm going to call bullshit and say you're delusional.

Next thing I know you'll be spouting crazy Jesus talk.

The world you live in conflicts with reality.

I'm glad to have someone up on the court who can understand and connect with society and where it is heading.

The law 150 years ago was that a percentage of the US population was not human - they were animals meant to work in the fields. A conservative judge would have upheld that law; after all that is what they preach - keeping everything the same and backwards. Conservatism and backwards go hand in hand as do liberalism and progressive - one advances society, the other prefers it stays in the past. Are you saying you approve of enslaving blacks? I would rather have a judge who would use their maturity and interpret the meant laws meant for humans as a human.

Regards.

Re:Yep, that's rasism.

[SuperKendall]

I can. I grew up around them, as that's who my dad worked for.

So did I. I was very poor growing up, but I worked partly as a caddy around real money.

It's very frightening how you use the derogitory term "them".

Obivously you despite rich people, and I'm sorry I cannot help you get over that. But people with money are simply people like any other, some good and some bad. People are people and money doesn't change that, it accentuates it.

I'm sorry you must live a life of hate, but perhaps some day you'll grow out of it. Only then can you be happy yourself, and perhaps achieve some measure of success.

Re:Mod parent up

[Reality Master 201]

It's fine; if you insist on reading it the way you want, rather than what she intends, you're within your rights to. Similarly, rational people are free to ignore and/or mock you.

Re:That's what she said

[realnrh]

And in almost all of those cases, at least two of Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg agreed with her. So she would be to the left of the court as currently constituted but not outside the bounds of the current composition of the court, which is exactly what should be expected of anyone not being appointed by a right-wing kook.

Re:Well, now!

[Uberbah]

Then either

1) you're lying
2) you've lost all touch with reality

But that's the problem with you wingnuts: you try to have your own set of facts with your own opinion.