Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Lexmark suffers second knock back in DMCA case (Register)
The Register reports that Lexmark has lost its DMCA case against Static Control Components yet again. "Barring the intervention of the US Supreme Court, Lexmark's hopes of using the DMCA against Static Control Components have been dashed."
(Log in to post comments)
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 22, 2005 18:59 UTC (Tue) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] Take it up to the US federal supreme court! They'll surely place a dagger in the heart of the issue!
Actually the court systems bother me these days. There's too many activist judges. The circuit courts are supposed to rule on law; state supreme courts should rule whether a law can exist based on state constitution; federal supreme courts are supposed to rule on whether a law can exist based on the US Constitution. Juries can decide if in a particular situation a law does not apply.
The problem stems from activist judges. The definition of "activist judge" that I'm most familiar with is a judge who rules based on what he thinks. Sometimes judges decide that even though the law doesn't cover the situation, it should, so they rule as if it does; and other times, a judge will decide that a law is stupid and will rule as if it doesn't exist even though they're either a circuit judge or a supreme court judge with no real justification on why a law isn't valid.
This is an underminement of the system. It's highly threatening. Lexmark could get into a supreme court with an activist judge who supports the DMCA and tighter corporate control, who wouldn't even bother to consider any other factors and just rule in favor of Lexmark. This is more like russian roulette than regular roulette; once a decision is called in court, future cases can be ruled on based on that decision.
It may be time to tear the court systems out and rebuild them. Hopefully this time around though Lexmark will hit the supreme court, which will smack them around a few times, and engrane for all time that these cases have no merit. Hopefully the law does NOT give them merit for this case; if it does, there's a serious problem.
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 22, 2005 20:28 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Actually, judicial review is merely one of the fuctions of the (US) courts. They also rule on matters of law — that is, interpret how existing law (including case law) applies to the controversy at hand. It may be trendy to rail at so-called "activist judges", but this isn't an "underminement of the system" — it's pretty much always been the system. Don't like it? Well, that's why we've got that whole checks-and-balances thing….
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 22, 2005 22:11 UTC (Tue) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] Are you sure that circuit courts are supposed to decide if the law is a real law or not? Or make up their own laws? I thought only the SUPREME COURT (state, federal) was supposed to be able to kick out a law; or that a jury could rule that a law does not apply in certain cases (the people speak, and the peoples' voice is heard). Though from the link you gave I'm not sure now.
Courts aren't ever supposed to invent their own laws, though. Cases have happened where this has occured, most famously and recently one ruling forced a state judge to remove a religious piece from his courthouse. No law exists for this; indeed, article 8 ammendment 1, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," forbids such a law as which would prohibit such a display from even being passed.
I have no problem with the supreme court ruling that laws are unconstitutional. Circuit courts I'm still not sure if they have that jurisdiction. What I don't like is judges ruling that they don't like a law, or that they don't like what someone did so that they pass sentence on them. In the first case, laws aren't there because you like them, and they can't be removed unless they conflict with higher laws (you'll note that religion can be used to subvert the law in some cases, i.e. incestuous marriage in amish culture is legal in america; we could discuss reasoning for this for hours); in the second, there's explicitly an article that prohibits ex post facto judgment, that is, you can't be sentenced for a crime you committed before it was documented as law that it was a crime. Judges can't say "well there should be a law and I think there will be one later, so I'll rule as if there was one."
There ARE bumps, and the courts ARE broken. The fact that you can get a different ruling depending on whether you have a liberal or conservative judge in some cases (especially issues like gun control, where banning guns conflicts with the constitution; some judges will side with state law, others with the US constitution) is a good indicator (judges should be politically neutral, but we don't live in candyland).
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 22, 2005 23:00 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I can't answer your question completely but yes, district courts can makenew law (there are two kinds of law... legislative and judicial) when existing law is unclear and there is no judicial precedent. They shouldn't ever ignore an existing law (assuming that the court was briefed properly, that it isn't unconsitutional, or that it isn't preempted by another law) or create conflicting law. There are a lot of fuzzy lines there. IANAL.
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 22, 2005 23:05 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Two other points I forgot to mention:
If lower courts can't invoke consitutionality of a law, how would such cases
About the monument thing: How is a law prohibiting display of religious
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 23, 2005 8:22 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] I thought the constitution was far stricter than "the government must not promote religion". I thought it said "the government is not allowed to pass any law governing religion". And a prohibition on religious symbols in government offices is an unconstitutional law governing religion!
Plus, it's totally against the *spirit* of the constitution. The clause was meant to prevent the government regulating HOW you practiced your religion, not to regulate whether or where you WERE allowed to practice it. A ban on the practice of religion on government property is in violation both of the spirit and letter of the constitution.
Oh - and a belief in "there is no god" is a religion in itself... the only thing I would not class as a religion is agnosticism - a "who cares" belief, and believers in that wouldn't be interested in laws about it :-)
Cheers,
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 23, 2005 12:52 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] I'm not sure why you think you have some magical insight into the "spirit"of the constitution, which everyone else apparently lacks... But, I think you're completely and totally wrong about that "spirit"...
And, while your hypothetical "belief in 'there is no god'" may in fact be
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 24, 2005 9:12 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] I think you're confusing atheism and agnosticism ...
Atheism *is* the belief that "there is no god".
The lack of a belief in god is agnosticism.
Cheers,
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 24, 2005 11:29 UTC (Thu) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] No, I rather think you are the one who is confused... An agnostic holdsan undefined view, and simply claims to not know/care if there is a god... It's intellectual cowardice and laziness... An atheist refuses to believe in a god, since there is no proof of one; therefore, they hold the proper scientific position in assuming that there is no god, until they see some proof to the contrary... If everyone took the agnostic approach, then no one would take any firm positions on anything, and scientists would just be a bunch of wishy-washy people saying, "Oh, I don't know!" about everything... If someone suggested something highly outrageous to you, for instance that there were invisible killer alien rabbits trying to take over the planet, would you say, "Well, I can't prove or disprove that, so maybe there are, maybe there aren't!", or would you say, "Until I see some proof of that, I'm going to assume you're simply insane!"...
Wikipedia has a decent entry on atheism, which makes the point I was trying
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 23, 2005 19:12 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I disagree with the ideas in your first paragraph to a large extent but sinceyou present them as your opinion there is little to debate.
As for the rest, I don't agree that not believing in god(s) is a religion
And yes, this affects Agnostics too. Say the government suddenly decided
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 23, 2005 8:11 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Actually, as I understand it, banning guns would NOT conflict with the constitution.
To put it in computerese, the gun clause in the constitution is an "if A then B" type clause, where B is "guns are permitted", and events now mean that A is false.
Read the constitution. It says, pretty much, "as we do not have a standing order the citizens are permitted to carry guns to defend the country". But you DO now have an army, and this clause is used to defend the right to hunt, which is TOTALLY unconstitutional ...
Cheers,
Take it up to US FED SUPCT!! Posted Feb 23, 2005 16:09 UTC (Wed) by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854) [Link] The Bill of Rights, starting with the freedom of speech/assembly and the right to bear arms, are there to outline the minimal list of rights of the people as protections against the new federal government that was to be established by the Constitution.
The Constitution, even though it goes to some length to be specific in what powers it grants to the federal government, was not clear enough on what powers it did *not* grant to it and what rights of the people were to be protected from the over-reach of it. The states were not willing to accept the Constitution without that initial set of 10 amendments, which were demanded as safe-guards of the people's rights.
That is how they should be read. That is why they were written and why the Constitution was not accepted without them.
Thus, the second amendment guarantees the right of the people to arm themselves specifically to keep the federal government from taking advantage of an un-armed people.
The despots of the past century, mostly desiring and implementing soviet / bolshevic / "communist" rule, have been very methodical in their plans to enslave people. One of the first steps is the complete disarmament of the people. After that, they can do nearly whatever they please. It is very telling that the UN is the world's premier proponent of world-wide disarmament.
The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It is about protecting our "inalienable" rights.
"Activist" Judge Posted Feb 22, 2005 20:42 UTC (Tue) by ccyoung (subscriber, #16340) [Link] Are you coming from the context of the Federalist Society?
"Activist" Judge Posted Feb 22, 2005 22:16 UTC (Tue) by bluefoxicy (guest, #25366) [Link] I'm not a federalist. Washington (the great leader who everyone worships) was a federalist. I don't like Washington. He wanted people to be allowed to vote iif they were rich white males, because blacks and females and poor people obviously don't have an opinion worth counting. He also wanted us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.
If you've ever seen a movie where you become a "citizen" when you turn 18 and enlist in the military, you'll understand what a federalist nation is.
Anyway, too much politics here.
"Activist" Judge Posted Feb 24, 2005 4:30 UTC (Thu) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] Perhaps you should read some Frederic Bastiat:
|
|||||||||||