Pure Drinking Water
Today the SCOTUS ruled on a case from Kentucky. The case involved a courthouse that displayed a copy of the Ten Commandments next to other "political and patriotic" documents such as the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence and the Star Spangled Banner.
The majority opinion struck down the right of the courthouse to display the document. The representative for the courthouse made the argument that the document is political in the context of the display because the Ten Commandments are the "backbone of the American system of justice." SCOTUS called bs. They didn't buy it because in two prior cases, all in lower courts, they argued that placement of the documents did serve a religious purpose but that was ok. By changing the argument completely the SCOTUS just said no. If you have about an hour and a half I suggest reading the decision. It's very well stated and a decent enough read.
This decision makes me wonder what is making people so angry about the Supreme Court. The idea that judges walk in lock-step with a certain political party or religious group shows a certain level of naivete about the court system and the judges themselves. Judges have the ability to act with complete disregard for previous rulings, for precedent in general, but there are repercussions. If one sits down to read not only the majority opinions, but also the dissenting opinions as well, one would see that there is actually logic and argument as the base for every decision, not simply emotional reaction as some would have you believe.
I'm not saying that the court is infalliable, because they definately are. I'm just saying that for the most part their decisions are very rational and interesting to read. If you've got the time.
--NUTRITIONFACTSLIEABOUTYOURBODY--
The majority opinion struck down the right of the courthouse to display the document. The representative for the courthouse made the argument that the document is political in the context of the display because the Ten Commandments are the "backbone of the American system of justice." SCOTUS called bs. They didn't buy it because in two prior cases, all in lower courts, they argued that placement of the documents did serve a religious purpose but that was ok. By changing the argument completely the SCOTUS just said no. If you have about an hour and a half I suggest reading the decision. It's very well stated and a decent enough read.
This decision makes me wonder what is making people so angry about the Supreme Court. The idea that judges walk in lock-step with a certain political party or religious group shows a certain level of naivete about the court system and the judges themselves. Judges have the ability to act with complete disregard for previous rulings, for precedent in general, but there are repercussions. If one sits down to read not only the majority opinions, but also the dissenting opinions as well, one would see that there is actually logic and argument as the base for every decision, not simply emotional reaction as some would have you believe.
I'm not saying that the court is infalliable, because they definately are. I'm just saying that for the most part their decisions are very rational and interesting to read. If you've got the time.
--NUTRITIONFACTSLIEABOUTYOURBODY--
I guess I could see some reasons why people might not be too fond of the Supreme Court. 'Nuff said?
Posted by
bava |
5:58 PM
The unanimous ruling against Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Inc. is definately a setback as far as freedom of music and technology sharing is concerned, but even that ruling has precedent in history.
The ruling has been touted as a setback against mp3 devices and the i-pod in particular. This is a complicated argument because, while mp3s make sharing music easier, it puts anyone trying to make money from their music out of business.
Railing against it (ie Metallica) is ridiculous, but the financial losses are very specifici. And many times they are the small independent businesses.
A story I heard on the radio this afternoon dealt with this topic and one person who called in was the owner of a music store on Seattle's Capitol Hill. He said that within the last two years three of the five original music stores with long histories in the district have gone out of business. He said that on a regular basis he hears young people saying, "Don't get that cd. When we get home, I'll burn you a copy." Well, there's no way to stop that. Technology is far beyond that point.
But to have unlimited access to an infinite database of music seems...counter to a free-market economy which is the only way our system perpetuates itself.
Now, that definately leads to abuse, but until those abuses are brought into the public eye with cases such as this there will be no change.
I think that it was an understandable ruling, though the geek in me shrivelled up into a little ball and is huddling in the corner (desperately screaming, "MY PRECIOUS!" while drooling over my collection of music).
Posted by
C.George |
2:17 PM