3 ms·
That is how the SC used to work: they would decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds. If they don't have to decide a tough question, but they can finesse
by not2b 2y ago
That is how the SC used to work: they would decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds. If they don't have to decide a tough question, but they can finesse it with something simpler, good enough. More recently they have been willing to tear up decades of established law on a regular basis.
- hnfong 2y ago"Used to work"... this was 2021. And generally courts/judges just choose the scope of their legal opinions based on how far reaching they want the legal principles to apply. IMHO, copyright-ability of APIs is so far away from their political agenda that they probably just decided to leave the issue on a cliffhanger...
- immibis 2y agoYes, "used to". Now, in 2024, the same supreme court has decided that presidents have immunity in all official acts, from stealing documents, up to and including assassination attempts on their opponents. This is a radical shift in how the court operates.
- kbolino 2y agoThis "opponent assassination" hypothetical gets bandied about a lot but I have not seen any evidence that any court considers that to be an "official act". Official acts are constrained to legitimate exercises of constitutional authority and are not merely anything a President (or especially, an ex-President) does.
- not2b 2y agoIt's specifically mentioned in the dissents.
- tiberious726 2y agoThe dissents, not the opinion
- jpadkins 2y agothe only thing radical is the opinions of people you are listening to if you believe SCOTUS enabled legally sanctioned assassinations. It was political hyperbole based on nothing, and it worked (with you). Think for yourself.