6 ms·

What a wonderful surprise. I'd forgotten about the judicial branch, and now they appear like the cavalry to sort out this mess. Wouldn't it be great if they w

• dctoedt 14y ago
  I wouldn't read too much into this. Judge Posner took standard principles of law governing damage awards and injunctions and applied them to a very specific set of circumstances. The opinion itself [1] is worth reading. [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/96427053/Posner-Order http://www.scribd.com/doc/96427053/Posner-Order
• AJ007 14y ago
  If it was not for the judicial branch, the internet would, as we know it today, would not exist. Remember such detestations as the Child Online Protection Act? Which, after being struck down, and the Supreme Court agreeing with the ruling, a John Ashcroft led Department of Justice continued to use tax payer money to push back through the courts? I suspect that the differences between functional and dysfunctional governments, elected or not, lie largely in their legal and court systems.
  • MartinCron 14y ago
    If it was not for the judicial branch, the internet would, as we know it today, would not exist. But for the judiciary, many of the liberties we take for granted wouldn't exist. It's easy to sneer at "activist judges" when you don't like how the rule, but never forget how brilliant the multi-branch system of government is.
    • crusso 14y ago
      > But for the judiciary, many of the liberties we take for granted wouldn't exist. True. Then again, a lot of evil has been done by the judiciary. Particularly with the supreme court, you have a small number of unelected decision makers who wield an enormous amount of power. > It's easy to sneer at "activist judges" when you don't like how the rule, Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, though. "activist judges" is a loaded pejorative, but in the right context it labels a real corruption of our system that we should be wary of. A true "activist judge" is one who gives the government new powers not explicitly granted by the US Constitution -- whether by allowing a new law to stand that doesn't pass Constitutional muster, or by creating new concepts out of thin air. The Legislative body is where we want our laws to be constructed, since those guys are the easiest to control through democracy. We don't want that law making function to leak all over the system like into the judiciary and the bureaucracy of the executive branch where we don't have good mechanisms to track and control.
• jsprinkles 14y ago
  It's unfortunate that it's easy to forget the judicial branch (I do too). It's tough to perceive their actions as governing in the same way that Congress governs, but it is in fact the case. It's also great when it's used effectively.
  • timwiseman 14y ago
    But they don't govern the same way Congress does, which is part of the beauty of the system. They certainly play a role in governing, but where Contress is active (in theory), the Courts are reactive, waiting for a case to be brought to them. Where Congress is reaching for power and often places limitations on citizens, the Courts (in principle) ensure Congress does not claim too much power and limits Congress.
• jonmc12 14y ago
  fwiw, Mark Cuban seemingly forgot about the judicial branch also when examining problem recently (http://blogmaverick.com/2012/03/13/i-hope-yahoo-crushes-face... http://blogmaverick.com/2012/03/13/i-hope-yahoo-crushes-face...) - "Rather than originating in Congress, its going to take a consumer uprising to cause change".
• portman 14y ago
  I would like Paul Graham, Richard Posner, and perhaps Mike Bloomberg to have a long, meandering dinner party wherein they discuss and solve America's most important problems. It worked for Jefferson/Madison/Hamilton 222 years ago. This could be exactly what we need.
  • te_chris 14y ago
    By the rich for the rich then? Sounds about right. Seriously though, you want 3 privileged, white men to decide the fate of your entire country? I'm all for smart people coming up with solutions, and I know your comment wasn't mean't to be taken too seriously, but this is just ridiculous. Technocracy is not the answer, no matter how much technologists would love it to be.
    • nathantotten 14y ago
      The founding fathers were all privileged white men.
      • molmalo 14y ago
        And then you had almost a century of slavery... I think that he has a point in saying that if you have an heterogeneous society, it's not wise to put all the power in an homogeneous group.
        • reader5000 14y ago
          Yeah dude white people are all the same.
        • slurgfest 14y ago
          It is worth observing that slavery was not universally practiced or accepted in the US and that ending it involved, among other things, a mind-boggling pile of corpses, the suspension of habeas corpus and the near destruction of the US as a political unit. Moreover, that the great empires maintained de facto slavery in their colonies up into the 60s. So I think there is a serious lack of historical perspective when you are trying to ding the founding fathers very hard for slavery, as if they all intended it, as if this were some kind of inevitable result of putting white people in power. I like affirmative action, but I don't think it is a viable principle for determining political rights, which should be universal and colorblind rather than being denied or granted based on race or a distaste for homogeneity. The idea that white people should not have power because of their inherent moral depravity is definitely a racist idea.
• fpgeek 14y ago
  Live by the judicial branch, die by the judicial branch. It is very much worth remembering that the judicial branch invented software patents in the first place. And that the Federal Circuit (which has jurisdiction for most patent-related appeals) seems to be a big fan of patents of all stripes and has been actively fanning the software patent flames. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has been correcting them recently on patents, but that is a slow, painful and potentially fallible process (see: Eldred v Ashcroft, IMO).