SCOTUS DECISION WATCH- Live Thread- 10am

Sun Times & AP ^ | June 27, 2005

[RobFromGa]

RULINGS ON MONDAY?

A look at the remaining cases of the Supreme Court's term:

TEN COMMANDMENTS: The constitutionality of Ten Commandments in public buildings and on government property, under the First Amendment's ban on an ''establishment'' of religion.

FILE SHARING: Whether the entertainment industry may sue technology manufacturers over consumers who use their products to steal music and movies online.

INTERNET ACCESS: A test of the tight control cable companies hold over high-speed Internet service in a case that will determine whether the industry must open up its lines to competitors.

DEATH PENALTY: A look at courts' flexibility to reopen cases, in an appeal that asks if an appeals court was wrong to order more study of a Tennessee Death Row inmate's claims.

RESTRAINING ORDERS: Whether police can be sued for how they enforce restraining orders.

[two23]

Yes, that too.
grrrrrrr

[rwfromkansas]

Well, I guess I could see how they could say the motivation would not change, since the courthouse obviously begrudgingly changed the displays to try to get it upheld.

It is pretty obvious what the intent was.

However, I still don't like the ruling.

[RoseofTexas]

"Not to be contrary, but I am glad they voted 5-4 to strike it down. Let W. and Republicans everywhere get really pissed off about this. Let them smell the dog crap the liberals have been throwing at them for years. Until they want to puke. Until the smell seeps into their pores and cannot be washed away. Until they FINALLY say That's IT. Then maybe we can get somewhere. Perhaps this is the turning point. "

I hate to say this, but I doubt it very much the SPINELESS wimpy pubs will do a thing! They can't even demand Durbin to resign after the ghastly insulted he threw at our Military folk.

[NautiNurse]

Too bad O'Connor didn't retire last Friday afternoon.

[rwfromkansas]

well, only if the Commandments have a religious purpose.

Of course, this is gravely wrong.

There never was intended to be a strict separation. In the early history of our country, we even gave federal funds to build churches, print Bibles, and pay missionaries sent to the Indians.

The Ten Commandments is peanuts in comparison.

[Waywardson]

...not with a BANG.... but with a whimper.... = (

[LS]

Or it may be exactly what we need as a call to arms to get some real justices in there. These existing five liberal weenies must go.

[RobFromGa]

Supreme Court Rules File-Sharing Software Makers Can Be Sued

[RobFromGa]

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet.

[rwfromkansas]

oh shit, this is the one I was really looking at.

I can't believe these bastards just OVERTURNED BETAMAX

I can't believe this.

The SOBS actually did it.

[bayourod]

They will say that the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court Walls are for historical purposes, not religious purposes, since they obviously aren't religious.

Besides, they can't put the Constitution on the wall because they change it too often. Maybe if they could use carvings with changeable letters.

[Tree of Liberty]

So "The Devil made me do it" is a valid legal argument, now???

[AntiGuv]

Wow. I am truly shocked by the Grokster ruling.

[RobFromGa]

unanimously

I don't know much about the Betamax precedent...

[small voice in the wilderness]

Amen. And the sooner Frist pushes the button, the sooner we can begin to straighten out this mess. Call in some nominees, aggravate and egg on the libs until they're ready to blow, then push the damn button and don't look back. Just frickin' GIT-R-DONE.

[Happy2BMe]

Has the Supreme Court Shown the Hand of Authoritarian Free Enterprise?

[SamFromLivingston]

Guess I'm in serious trouble then. Internet Explorer, Firefox, and WS_FTP are all illegal now?

[volvox]

My understanding is there are two rulings too. We only have the first one so far. From what I am reading, it has been reported that the opinion doesn't rule against a sacred text intergrated with governmental text on history and law, but rather they believe this display was religiously motivated.

[demkicker]

I think that was tried in San Diego, and was ruled illegal.

I sure would like to get confirmation of a case like that. If true, & the Calif State (Socialist) Supreme Court ruled it illegal, I think we'd have a better chance with the Texas Supreme Court.

[NautiNurse]

Looks like I'll be hanging on to this computer for a long, long time...