4 ms·
Except in this case it’s like being forced to resolve disputes according to your uncle’s inexpert and biased reading of how your great-great-great-great-grandpa
by dbasedweeb 8y ago
Except in this case it’s like being forced to resolve disputes according to your uncle’s inexpert and biased reading of how your great-great-great-great-grandparents settles their marital spats.
- lainga 8y agoIf you disagree with the majority opinions of the Justices, who were nominated under Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr., Clinton, and Obama, you are free to vote for a president who will appoint differently-minded justices (like Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by Trump).
- dbasedweeb 8y agoI agree with the decision actually, I just disagree with the originalist viewpoint.
- tptacek 8y agoIt is not. The Privy Council example rebuts one of Greene Energy's arguments. The foundation of the decision is orthogonal to that rebuttal; it's simply that issuance of a patent franchise doesn't turn a public right into private property, and thus what the USPTO giveth, the USPTO can taketh away.
- dbasedweeb 8y agoI’m not disagreeing with the majority decision, just the argument for originalism.
- DannyBee 8y agoThe argument against anything else is that they all turn the court into a policy making body in various forms, instead of trying to stay as objective about interpretation as they can. Whether that's good or bad depends on your view.
- dbasedweeb 8y agoObjective and originalist are different things, and the constitution has never been immutable, hence the large number of amendments.
- neekburm 8y agoI think this was a tactic by the defenders of IPR, rather than some deeply-held belief. We have at least four self-styled originalists (but see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1422048 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1422048) on the Court, and they want to hear arguments about what 18th Century politicians thought about patent rights.
- DannyBee 8y agoThat's not a fair characterization. Thomas for example, while i don't always agree with him, does try to do real research on the history of these issues/subjects. He's also not exactly "inexpert". It's not bullshit attempts to rationalize an ideology (like say, Gorusch, AFAICT :P). If he's wrong about history, and you can show it, he's generally been willing to change his view. As mentioned, they also definitely rely on experts for this (and are often experts themselves), and cite the expert historical analysis they rely upon.