Bilski: business as usual [LWN.net]

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 1:23 UTC (Tue) by modernjazz (guest, #4185)
Parent article: Bilski: business as usual

> The current chief justice - John Roberts - has been very clear from the outset that he is not interested in the writing of expansive rulings.

Except, of course, when he stretches much farther than the case requires, like when he tossed out campaign finance reform laws.

to post comments

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 1:48 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

What one person calls "campaign finance reform" another person calls "a infringement on the freedom of speech, which is expressly and specifically forbidden by the constitution"... ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics.

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 15:18 UTC (Tue) by modernjazz (guest, #4185) [Link]

The point was not whether you agree with the decision in Citizens United; I agree it's a very delicate issue, but in any case debate over the merits or demerits of that decision is not really relevant for LWN.

The point of my comment was merely whether this supreme court rules narrowly, as stated in the quote I excerpted from the original article. No one would call Citizens United (as one example) a narrow ruling: had they wanted to rule narrowly, they could have done essentially the same thing they did in the Bilski case. But they chose not to, and notably it was a 5-4 decision, not the 9-0 or 7-2 that characterizes many previous "expansive" rulings.

So, while Roberts _said_ when he was appointed that he wasn't interested in expansive rulings, the actual decisions have sometimes proven otherwise. (Not that there haven't been some narrow rulings, too; it has been a mix.) My post was merely clarifying that there is often a gap between what someone says they want and what actually ends up happening in reality.

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 2:30 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link] (1 responses)

Have you actually read the Citizens United opinions? It's a hard question ... I found it much harder to be outraged once I was well informed. This is often, but not always the case with supreme court cases.

Bilski: business as usual

Posted Jun 29, 2010 15:35 UTC (Tue) by modernjazz (guest, #4185) [Link]

Sure, I agree that it's a complex issue, and IANASCJ (I Am Not A Supreme Court Justice). Not that it would help clarify things much if I were, given the 5-4 ruling...

But one thing is certain: no one could possibly call Citizens United a narrow ruling. Indeed, it was pretty close to the broadest possible ruling, given the constraints of the case. Sometimes broad rulings are good, sometimes bad, but it's an error to think that this particular court is never interested in expansive rulings. Therefore, it was not crazy to hope that the Bilski ruling would have been more expansive.