|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:What is his definition of a "special interest"? Something someone wants that the person using the term doesn't want.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/jack-abramoff-supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_5169510.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics quote:Urging the Supreme Court Justices to reconsider their recent ruling, Abramoff said, "They've got to recognize that when a politician gets money in any amount from somebody who wants something back, that itself is bribery. That itself is corruption. They would never put up with it for themselves. They would never allow somebody who had a case in front of them to give them a campaign contribution or buy them dinner. Why in the world are they allowing it for politicians?" I could easily see some members of the SCOTUS accepting gifts from someone who had a case before them at some point. Not sure what fantasy world this guy lives in. I could see someone like Scalia taking gifts from Hobby Lobby without a second thought.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
You don't even need hypotheticals. http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/the-clarence-thomas-scandal/
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:You don't even need hypotheticals. Are judges really supposed to recuse themselves if they only have a financial connection to amici? That seems really overbroad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Are judges really supposed to recuse themselves if they only have a financial connection to amici? That seems really overbroad. No, it's totally in keeping with norms and conventions on judicial ethics. Think about how easy it would be to abuse an exception for connections to amici. Remember, a common standard is to avoid even the appearance of conflict.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
But everybody and their brother files amici in Supreme Court cases. Could anyone rule on the case if that was the standard?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Radish posted:You don't even need hypotheticals. Oh come on, accusing Thomas of accepting bribes to rule in favor of corporate interests is really beyond the pale of civilized discussion. There's no corruption because we all know he would rule that way for free out of pure spite 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But everybody and their brother files amici in Supreme Court cases. Could anyone rule on the case if that was the standard? Only the groups that haven't engaged in what looks suspiciously like attempting to buy influence with the Justices. So probably not, but maybe in an ideal world we could maybe have interest groups that interact with the political process in the same way as most citizens - with words. (I know I'm dreaming. I'm just tired of the process where a candidate who fails to properly fellate their party's 'fundraising partners' is under threat of being primaried, and their new rival funded by the slighted donor.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
A couple of interesting cases up for argument this week. Pom v. Coca Cola, ABC v Aereo, and Limelight v Akami. The biggest one is probably the Aereo case, which could have really broad implications for digital services. If the Court changes the definition of "performance" with regard to digital transmission, then cloud storage providers and streaming companies are going to be paying out a lot more money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:A couple of interesting cases up for argument this week. Pom v. Coca Cola Aww. I read this as Porn vs. Coca Cola and was already getting my popcorn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:A couple of interesting cases up for argument this week. Pom v. Coca Cola, ABC v Aereo, and Limelight v Akami. Either ABC wins, or you have 150 million extremely pissed off people with Aereo, because the traditional broadcast model is going away forever, and so are sports. People want their sports. Aereo and it's 'innovation' are going to die.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Aww. I read this as Porn vs. Coca Cola and was already getting my popcorn. I'm still getting my popcorn (with buttery flavoring). We haven't had a good Lanham Act case in a while.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm still getting my popcorn (with buttery flavoring). We haven't had a good Lanham Act case in a while. I mean, other than Lexmark earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I mean, other than Lexmark earlier this year. Yeah, I had that mentally filed as a copyright case. Mostly I wanted an excuse to bring up buttery topping in the context of Pom's suit. Maybe "processed american cheese product" would be closer to Coca-Cola's "Pomegranate blueberry flavored blend of 5 juices from concentrate with added ingredients and other natural flavors." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Either ABC wins, or you have 150 million extremely pissed off people with Aereo, because the traditional broadcast model is going away forever, and so are sports. How so? Without broadcast Aereo has nothing and ABC is already prepping their own Aereo competitor (because they seem to realize people will pay for something even if it's being given away for free). Edit: Unless you're saying a company will walk away from 150 million pairs of eyeballs watching their ads? duz fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
duz posted:How so? Without broadcast Aereo has nothing and ABC is already prepping their own Aereo competitor (because they seem to realize people will pay for something even if it's being given away for free). The big network broadcasters will want those eyeballs, I just think they'll smash Aereo into the ground, and you've revealed they're working on their own version of Aereo, yeah, it's just going to be a bat in the middle of Time Square. Very open, and very few will care because they're so niche.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The big network broadcasters will want those eyeballs, I just think they'll smash Aereo into the ground, and you've revealed they're working on their own version of Aereo, yeah, it's just going to be a bat in the middle of Time Square. Very open, and very few will care because they're so niche. Yeah, I agree, even if Aereo wins, they won't last the competition the networks will throw up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
A general rule of thumb for any case in which Pom is involved is to root for the other guy. Pom are trying to do some really nasty things to the market via litigation, and they have a real track record of this sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A general rule of thumb for any case in which Pom is involved is to root for the other guy. Pom are trying to do some really nasty things to the market via litigation, and they have a real track record of this sort of thing. The court should side with POM and just hand down a ruling that says "CHAOS REIGNS"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Allaniis posted:Limelight v Akami. Everyone's talking about the others, but what's the dealio with this one? Is it a reverse-engineering case involving something like what the guy does in Paycheck? Or is it something like the Pirate Bay, but with patents?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A general rule of thumb for any case in which Pom is involved is to root for the other guy. Pom are trying to do some really nasty things to the market via litigation, and they have a real track record of this sort of thing. Care to expand on that? It seems like on a cursory glance they have the moral high ground (Apple with 0.2% pomegranate is apple juice not pomegranate juice), even if their legal argument is shaky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Care to expand on that? It seems like on a cursory glance they have the moral high ground (Apple with 0.2% pomegranate is apple juice not pomegranate juice), even if their legal argument is shaky. Yeah, I mean it does call it a 5 juice blend, but the packaging feels really misleading with the emphasis on pomegranate and blueberry. Although I guess if it does taste like pomegranate and blueberry and not apple or grape juice, it might make sense. quote:In the courtroom, Pom pointed out that when customers buy Minute Maid’s Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of five juices, they think they’re getting mostly pomegranate and blueberry juice. But the beverage is 99.4 percent apple and grape juice, 0.3 percent pomegranate juice, 0.2 percent blueberry juice, and 0.1 percent raspberry juice. Pom also took issue with the images on the label—featuring a pomegranate and blueberries as prominently as an apple, grapes, and raspberries—and the size of the type for “Pomegranate Blueberry” compared with “flavored blend of five juices.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah, I mean it does call it a 5 juice blend, but the packaging feels really misleading with the emphasis on pomegranate and blueberry. Although I guess if it does taste like pomegranate and blueberry and not apple or grape juice, it might make sense. I think the dumbest part of their argument is on the prominence of the "flavored blend" part on the label. It's not in tiny type, or particularly hard to find. The phrase is clearly visible and directly below the names of the two characteristic, non-primary flavoring juices. The idea that this could be considered "false advertising" when the Ninth Circuit held that their labeling was explicitly authorized by and well within FDA guidelines is a mockery of the very concept of regulatory rulemaking. Not that Pom Wonderful cares much about regulations, considering that they've tried to claim that explicit health claims they've made in advertising magically don't exist and that the FTC shouldn't be allowed to tell them that they can't make them. If they wanted to challenge the regulation, that's one thing, but they're just trying to make an end-run around it. EDIT: I just had a thought - wouldn't a finding in favor of Pom open the flood gates for GMO labeling to be forced by litigation, rather than legislation or regulation? I can only see someone in the wake of this case trying to claim that failure to disclose GMO content is "false advertising", even without statute or regulation on their side, to force companies to disclose those scary, evil Frankenfoods. Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Everyone's talking about the others, but what's the dealio with this one? Is it a reverse-engineering case involving something like what the guy does in Paycheck? Or is it something like the Pirate Bay, but with patents? Neither. Akamai is a patent case that's going to review what's called "divided infringement" - basically, what kind of liability is available in a situation where a single patent covers something but that something is performed by two separate entities. As an example, let's say I had a patent on "a method comprising throwing a ball and catching the ball." Joe throws the ball. Bill catches it. No single party performs all the steps of the patent. So, who's liable? The answer, right now, is no one, unless Joe exerts control over Bill's actions or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah, I mean it does call it a 5 juice blend, but the packaging feels really misleading with the emphasis on pomegranate and blueberry. Although I guess if it does taste like pomegranate and blueberry and not apple or grape juice, it might make sense. That's a major part of the ABA brief: the FDA spent a lot of time on the issue of prominence during their rulemaking process, and decided explicitly that flavor was the most salient element. The brief also cites Seinfeld, in footnote 7. (I found the ABA brief really interesting, personally, and it totally caused me to reverse my position on the case.) Where's a good place to start learning about POM's history of villainy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Xandu posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Where's a good place to start learning about POM's history of villainy? I'm afraid I don't have one- my knowledge of the line of cases came from doing some research when a co-worker was an expert witness in one of their earlier cases, suing Ocean Spray to similarly try to block the use of the word "Pomegranate" on labeling a blended juice product. The two general lines of cases the company is known for are a) POM trying to get away with ridiculous medical claims about the benefits of pomegranate juice, seeds, rinds, dust, etc. To quote Wikipedia's entry on their legal shenanigans, quote:Examples of unapproved labeling cited in the [FDA] warning letter come from a section of POM's website titled "Featured Scientific Studies" which contained health claims regarding "Prostate Cancer", "Erectile Dysfunction", "Reducing LDL cholesterol", "promote(ing) a healthy heart and prostate", "reduce(ing) the length and severity of colds", "...shown to slow prostate tumor growth", "particularly beneficial ("among quite a few others") and b) them trying to sue anyone else who uses pomegranate in their blended product out of existence. I recall this was largely coming from one of their executives, Stewie something I think, who really believes this is a viable approach to conquering the market. As others have mentioned above, POM suits have routinely positioned themselves as diametrically opposing the letter and function of various labeling laws. If the court rules for them, then unless some really impressive and unlikely judgement jujitsu occurs, hobbesmaster posted:a ruling that says "CHAOS REIGNS" Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Affirmative action is dead if states want it to be. All hail our post-racial reality! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Affirmative action is dead if states want it to be. All hail our post-racial reality! All from SCOTUS Blog: "The plurality opinion stresses that the case is not about the constitutionality or the merits of race conscious admission policies in higher education. Rather, the question concerns whether and in what manner voters in a state may chose to prohibit consideration of such racial preferences." Is it a big deal? Is the other case decided a big deal other than bizarro world in make up? "Court holds in opinion by Justice Thomas that the traffic stop in this case complied with the Fourth Amendment because under the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck's driver was intoxicated. The decision of the California middle appellate court is affirmed. The Court is divided 5-4. Justice Scalia writes for the dissenters, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:All from SCOTUS Blog: Not in so far as it continues a trend to gut it. Not that affirmative action could have won anyway with Kagan recusing herself. hobbesmaster posted:Is the other case decided a big deal other than bizarro world in make up? Well it does indirectly legitimize parallel construction (police can pull you over as long as they claim to have an "anonymous tip"), so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Breyer continues to be bad at the 4th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Well it does indirectly legitimize parallel construction (police can pull you over as long as they claim to have an "anonymous tip"), so there's that. Doesn't look too crazy? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Doesn't look too crazy? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-9490_3fb4.pdf Let's put it this way: the police can pull you over for an anonymous tip placed by an unreliable source, and then claim they smell marijuana to search your car (like they did in this case). Again, the case was more or less a foregone conclusion given that they took it in the first place, and it may not seem bad on its face, but if that (the tip+smelling marijuana to justify a search) isn't what happened here, it certainly frees the police to do just that now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Existing 4A Case Law: anonymous tips can provide sufficient "reasonable suspicion" for a LEO to pull over a car, so long as there is sufficient indicia of reliability as to that anonymous tip. Sufficient indicia of reliability typically requires particularized knowledge that is not attributable to the general population (e.g., someone who has knowledge about the suspect, giving details about the suspect's activities that the general public could not glean simply from observing the suspect). This Case: anonymous tips can provide sufficient "reasonable suspicion" for a LEO to pull over a car. Sufficient indicia of reliability exists because of the mere fact that the anonymous tip was made over the 911 system by a person who claimed to have seen the suspect in person.  Even better: an anonymous tip of a single instance of bad driving provides sufficient reasonable suspicion of drunk driving even after LEOs themselves observe the suspect's completely traffic-violation free driving for five minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
They can pull you over for not signaling or going 1 mph over the limit and then claim to smell weed, so the practical situation hasn't changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Only now they can pull you over even when you obey all the laws -- based on an "anonymous tip" that you were driving in the area and committed a traffic violation -- and then can claim to smell weed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Not in so far as it continues a trend to gut it. Not that affirmative action could have won anyway with Kagan recusing herself. Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove in court that an anonymous tip had been received? "The police dispatcher received a call at 1:35 AM..." I once called the police when I noticed a driver who was very obviously drunk, hoping he would be pulled over. I had no idea that didn't qualify as probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
StarMagician posted:Wouldn't it be pretty easy to prove in court that an anonymous tip had been received? "The police dispatcher received a call at 1:35 AM..." Thomas points out that the call wasn't made anonymously, the call was recorded along with the caller id and the caller freely gave their name but the prosecution in the case proceeded as if it was an anonymous call because they didn't want to subpoena the 911 operator and the caller for a suppression hearing. Scalia obsesses over the fact that the tip was anonymous and nobody would anonymously report being in a traffic accident. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thomas points out that the call wasn't made anonymously, the call was recorded along with the caller id and the caller freely gave their name but the prosecution in the case proceeded as if it was an anonymous call because they didn't want to subpoena the 911 operator and the caller for a suppression hearing. Scalia obsesses over the fact that the tip was anonymous and nobody would anonymously report being in a traffic accident. Scalia often feels entitled to his own facts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Thomas points out that the call wasn't made anonymously, the call was recorded along with the caller id and the caller freely gave their name but the prosecution in the case proceeded as if it was an anonymous call because they didn't want to subpoena the 911 operator and the caller for a suppression hearing. Scalia obsesses over the fact that the tip was anonymous and nobody would anonymously report being in a traffic accident. I was wondering why he signed on to the dissent. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 16:16
|
|