Posted on 06/27/2005 6:51:27 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40461-2005Feb20.html
AUSTIN -- Comes now the plaintiff, surely one of the most unusual to get a case to the highest court in the land. He's homeless; he's destitute; and his law license is suspended.
But never mind all that, Thomas Van Orden admonishes anyone who gets stuck on the fact that he sleeps nightly in a tent in a wooded area; showers and washes his clothes irregularly; hangs out in a law library; and survives on food stamps and the good graces of acquaintances who give him a few bucks from time to time.
"Drudge: 5-4: Supreme Court has ruled Ten Commandments displays are not allowed in courthouses...."
Kennedy, right?
O'Connor
Stevens is a conservative hater he will stay on until his death or the hildebeast comes in.
I just checked. Based on what comments there are so far: pleased about 10 Commandments, downright giddy about the Plame reporters, and against the Grokster file-sharing & BrandX internet decisions.
Yes, but the motivation does matter to the THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!
They are thrilled about the Ten Commandments, dismayed about the file sharing.
No, but I am guessing they are not totally happy either. I am guessing the file-sharing and line sharing decisions have them irked.
I think next Monday (Independance Day), I'll fly my flag at 1/2 staff.
.
What about line sharing? I don't feel like going over there.
This is the Castle Rock restraining order case:
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that local governments have no constitutional duty to protect from private violence an individual who is shielded by a court's restraining order. Such individuals do not gain an enforceable interest in that protection, the Court declared in an opinion by Justice Scalia.
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court (search) ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.
The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. (search)and StreamCast Networks Inc. (search)on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
File-sharing services shouldn't get a free pass on bad behavior, justices said.
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court.
At issue was whether the file-sharing services should be held liable even if they have no direct control over what millions of online users are doing with the software they provide for free. As much as 90 percent of songs and movies copied on the file-sharing networks are downloaded illegally, according to music industry filings.
Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431564/posts
Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote.
In a stinging dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia worried publicly about "the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority."
Perhaps I'm a bit confused, but FOX showed the Texas building and KC and made a comment that the ruling was for both...maybe I misunderstood what the reporter said...ALL I know is that I'm upset because the ACLU won a BIG one! This is HUGE for them! Their next mission...REMOVE the word GOD from every build, pledge, text book and coins, and they'll probably succeed!
The Court ruled 5-4 that the Sixth Circuit abused its discretion in withdrawing an opinion in a habeas case months after the ruling should have been made final by issuance of a mandate. The Court said it was resolving only the particular case, and was not deciding the scope of an appeals court's authority to withold a mandate in order to resolve a case. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spoke for the majority.
So far I've predicted every single decision expected today wrong. LOL My track record's never been remotely so abysmal. I guess that means that the Court will rule that the death penalty case can be reopened by the Federal court after habeas has previously been denied and the case has proceeded onward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.