Slashdot Mirror
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."
Can we please stop with the "Cyber-" every damn thing?
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
How could he cry unreasonable search on a computer that didn't belong to him? It's the property of his employer, and, unlike a case where he would be leasing it, and thereby be able to claim some contractual ownership rights, in this case it is clearly their property.
I think if there is anything resembling a reasonable search, that's it. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a work computer.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
Racist and sexist speech are politically incorrect, but only when the speaker is white and male. All others may proceed with their bigotted remarks; often these are deemed to be funny.
My blog
The key part of the phrase here is who hasn't lived that life. That's the context.
Now there's an understandable difference of opinion on whether the statement about reaching a "better" conclusion based on experiences similar to the plaintiff/defendant is valid, but I don't think it's racially biased in the sense of "race X is better than race Y."
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
"...than a white male who hasn't lived that life"
It's called a dependent clause. Learn about it, says a white male (me). I've seen extreme poverty, I've lived around it, and therefore I have some understandings of it. But I don't know it the way someone who's lived it does. And I have no clue what it must be like to grow up as a female. Repeat after me, "I don't know everything."
I believe what she's trying to put across here is that a person who grew up as a poor minority woman is more likely to reach a fair conclusion than an old money white male would. Specifically, I think she's referring here to questions about those issues: poverty and discrimination.
It's equivalent to saying "I think an IT expert turned judge would be more likely to reach a fair decision in technology cases than an a judge that doesn't know how to send email would".
If you can get what you want from a web page, do you scroll down to see if there is a hyperlink going to some fine print? Before you posted, did you scroll to the bottom of this comment page to see if there was any such link?
On a paper document, the fine print comes before the place you sign. You might not read it, but you know it is there. If you want people bound by your terms, online or on paper, you don't have to make sure they read them, but it is up to you to make sure they know they are there.
In any case, there's no lack of knowledge here. She knew exactly how accessible the terms were, whether you disagree about the legal implications of that accessibility or not.
Anyways, I would like to know if she is actually racist, as evidenced by the rulings she has made? So far all I have heard is one or two statements from a talk (not a legal proceeding) a number of years ago. It's silly to base one's opinion on that, when she has gone "on the record" through her rulings countless times. If she has made racist rulings, then we don't need her on the bench.
To be able to do that, you wouldn't be human.
You expect him to be suited for telling a young woman that she has to bear the child of a man who raped her, despite never being in a situation where someone he knew/loved was raped? This is a very real possibility for this judge to have to face.
He'd be fine for passing sentences on white collar offenders, but for those who live in the ghettos, someone from the ghettos will be better suited.
Context matters, and if you pay attention to everything she said, it's not really racist at all.
Sadly, complex thoughts and context don't seem to fare well in the minds of many people these days - maybe it's because they don't make for quick, easy to digest sound bites.
The 60% figure is bogus. Of the thousands of decisions she's made, only 5 have been taken up by the Supreme Court, and of those 3 were reversed, one affirmed and one has not yet been decided. That is similar to the outcome for most appeals court judge decisions: thousands are never taken up by the Supreme court, 70% of those which are taken up are reversed, and 30% of those which are taken up are affirmed. The Supreme Court only looks at cases it seems likely to reverse. Appeals court judges decide the vast majority of cases in the same way the Supreme Court would, so the Supreme Court doesn't say anything about them, letting them stand. The vast majority of the time, the system works.
She did not rule to deny the promotions regardless of the test results. She ruled that the city had the right to throw out the test results if they so choose.
Not a typewriter
I explain:
1. It is logical that it is more egregious for a member of a historically dominant group (that previously denied other members of its society from voting, considered other members of its society as property, etc.) to make statements that appear to support reasons for that dominance.
2. Larry Summers is currently one of the most powerful people in the US; his comments didn't exactly torpedo his career (many people at Harvard hated him for reasons far beyond his gender comments; the latter were just the spark the kindling needed).
3. Sotomayor did not assert "there are fundamental differences between both the genders AND races[1] as if it were a settled fact." In the quote that everyone is hot and bothered about, she spoke about how her experiences that were due to her gender and ethnicity might shape her decisions. If you don't get why such experiences might matter, I ask you this- what would have happened if Frederick Douglass had been on the court for Dred Scott v. Sanford?
4. Here are some key excerpts from Sotomayor's speech:
5. Horrified by #4? How about Justice Alito, during his confirmation:
I know some white males (full disclosure: I am a white male) like to pretend that we live in a race- and gender-blind society, but we don't.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
I found Kelo v. New London to be eminently correct. All it said, after all, was "Yes, the local government does have the power of eminent domain. The law giving it to them doesn't place any restrictions on it. If the people want it limited, they need to change the law to add limits. It's not the court's place to rewrite the law.".
No, sorry, I'm not going to give her first amendment credit because she sometimes gets some parts of it right. Not to mention the fact that she fails hard in several other constitutional areas (which the blog post also points out.) Her entire job is to get all of it right all the time. It's plain English, for crying out loud:
"...shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
This applies within the states via the 14th amendment's incorporation doctrine. For a judge to misunderstand that they either have to have a major head injury or be an outright traitor to their oath. How is it that I, a common person, easily understand this, and this "wise latina" (her own characterization, not mine) does not???
She definitely doesn't deserve to serve as one of the nine final arbiters of 1st amendment rights if she thinks muzzling young people's speech and opinions outside of school by enforcement actions inside of school is an appropriate use of government power. She directly creates an environment here where a person's free speech outside of school will engender thoughts (and correct ones, at that) of government punishment and intervention. The woman is a constitutional nightmare.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
How can you presume to know what experiences even someone who grew up around money had?
I can. I grew up around them, as that's who my dad worked for. In general, the most horrific bunch of hideous, unhinged zombies I'll ever have the pleasure to meet. No skills, no manners, no intelligence (no need, really, in this world, it's all about connections), and zero idea of how 99.99% of their fellow humans live.
Not that it should be a requirement for rich people to be cognizant of how everybody else gets along, but insularity breeds contempt, so it's on them.
In short, rich white people* are fucking clueless, and I've certainly don't want some freak oligarchy being the one that calls the shots, especially when they're so woefully unprepared.
*Plenty of non-white rich assholes too. Though, to be fair, there's a certain curiosity still present in most cultures that the anglo ones I've experienced just don't have as much.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
If we're going to spout off insults, the world you live in has way too many emotional nuances to even have reality.
The law 150 years ago wasn't changed due to some decisions of the SCOTUS to consider all humans, human. It was however changed by the will of the people and their legislative officials, as well as the executive branch.
The law 60 years ago wasn't changed due to the feelings of the SCOTUS either, to remove segregation. It was changed due to the unconstitutionality of the laws that were passed. The whole checks and balances thing in play.
SCOTUS in your example: conservative, progressive, liberal, are all political goals, aspirations or choices. I'd much rather have them doing their jobs, being a check in the system so the other cogs don't do stupid shit like enslave half of the country, or whatever comes next down the pike, then try to legislate on the bench (one political direction or the other, it's not their job).
If a white man had said the same thing she did, but, in reverse with a white man making better decisions that a latin woman, he would have been crucified at least 3x by now...and immediately disqualified.
Why the double standard with this woman?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........