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

Whistles and pops

[whiledo]

I hope she understands "cyberlaw" better than I understood anything but the last line of that summary...

Re:Hi Itninja

[Itninja]

I don't get it.

Re:Sotomayer is a nightmare

[fyngyrz]

It's a long list.

The list of badly thought out rationalizations to prohibit free speech is indeed long, but the number of people who subscribe to them that I know is not large. Admittedly, I live in an area where even the state government has rejected the federal position on many of these issues -- we have laws *against* eminent domain, *against* federal firearms authority, and so forth. Perhaps the people in your area do indeed cleave as a majority to the ideas you mention above. If so, what a crying, pitiful shame. And what a broad condemnation of our educational system.

So yes, the 1st Amendment, as written, is an extremist position. That doesn't make it bad, but it does make it unconventional.

The constitution, inclusive of the first amendment, is the constituting authority for government power and structure. Anything to the contrary is by definition illegal and unauthorized, barring pursuit of article V. That's not opinion: That's fact. The legal system is being driven by people in violation of the highest law in the land. Fact. If you take comfort in the commonality of the number and position of the lawbreakers, that's your business. I don't. I only regret that there are no penalties associated with violation of the constitution's requirements; I have no doubt in my mind that is why legislators and judges alike feel free to "wing it" whenever they choose.

So, assuming you do have a clue, who are you pushing for?

No, you have it right. I'm pushing against Sotomayor. I'm not in a position where I can nominate anyone. But I can raise my voice against poor choices.

However... If the nation really wanted a really good SCOTUS justice, it should obviously pick me. I'd protect rights as written in the constitution, and my response to those who would twist its words to try to get what they want would uniformly "seek an amendment." But guess what? I misspent my teenage years (drugs) and part of my young adult life [crazed musician], I'm not wealthy, and frankly, I couldn't win the office of dogcatcher on my best day. So my input is limited to speaking my opinion, and defending it as best I can, in the face of whatever opposition arises. From time to time, someone shows me where I'm wrong, and I adjust my opinions accordingly. That's just as much of a win for me as is enlightening someone else, as (very) occasionally happens.

I suppose if I had a choice in the matter, I'd probably pick a thinker like Nick Gillespie. But I don't.