3 ms·

Read the section labeled "argument" here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/02/12-715-Thomas-Rasset-Opp2.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/

Read the section labeled "argument" here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/02/12-715-Thomas-Rasset-Opp2.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/02/12-715... That sounds like a defendent of the record companies, not the executive branch trying to ensure law is faithfully executed. It would be one thing if the supreme court were ignoring laws, but arguing for the denial to review a case is hardly taking care that law is faithfully executed. Our executive branch is suggesting the subversion of due process in this case.

rayiner 14y ago
The DOJ is the government's lawyer. Their job isn't to present balanced analysis of both sides of the government, any more than it's your lawyers job to do that. Their job is to argue strenuously for the interpretation most favorable to their client (in this context, Congress). That's their role in the executive's overall duty to faithfully execute the law.
tptacek 14y ago
Exactly how is a brief suggesting that a case doesn't merit cert a "violation of due process"? A full hearing of one's case by the Supreme Court is not a procedural right guaranteed to citizens by the constitution. SCOTUS rejects the overwhelming majority of appeals without hearings.
- hakaaaaak 14y ago
  From the argument: "Petitioner’s further contention (Pet. 15-18) that the court of appeals misapplied the Williams standard is not fairly encompassed in the question presented and is, in any event, a case-specific challenge that does not warrant this Court’s review." In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain. Edit: to clarify- this is the final statement in the reasoning why due process should not be considered. Read the argument.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    You didn't answer my question.
    - hakaaaaak 14y ago
      I did. Their argument was that due process was handled in the preceding two trials and due process should be denied because X and Y, but to the point that a relevant case was misapplied (which should result in appeal), they basically say "umm... that was case specific and yada yada yada we're right".
      - nialo 14y ago
        What exactly do you mean when you say "due process"? can you explain without using the actual words "due process"?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    If I'm your lawyer, and you win, and the other party seeks an appeal to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what I write for you. Because it's not my job to insert my judgment about whether I think the Supreme Court should hear the case, my job is only to argue in favor of the interpretation that lets you win the quickest. In the context of Constitutional challenges to Congressional laws, the DOJ has the same job. They will first seek to have review denied because that's the quickest way for Congress to win. If review is granted, the Solicitor General, whose office is part of the DOJ, will have to drag his ass to the Supreme Court and argue strenuously in favor of upholding the Constitutionality of Congress's law. That's just the way the adversarial legal system works. Also, your Due Process point is way out of bounds. Due Process does not entail the right to Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court could deny the petition for no other reason than "it sounded boring" and there would be no Due Process violation.

rayiner 14y ago

The DOJ is the government's lawyer. Their job isn't to present balanced analysis of both sides of the government, any more than it's your lawyers job to do that. Their job is to argue strenuously for the interpretation most favorable to their client (in this context, Congress). That's their role in the executive's overall duty to faithfully execute the law.

tptacek 14y ago

Exactly how is a brief suggesting that a case doesn't merit cert a "violation of due process"? A full hearing of one's case by the Supreme Court is not a procedural right guaranteed to citizens by the constitution. SCOTUS rejects the overwhelming majority of appeals without hearings.

hakaaaaak 14y ago
From the argument: "Petitioner’s further contention (Pet. 15-18) that the court of appeals misapplied the Williams standard is not fairly encompassed in the question presented and is, in any event, a case-specific challenge that does not warrant this Court’s review." In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain. Edit: to clarify- this is the final statement in the reasoning why due process should not be considered. Read the argument.
- tptacek 14y ago
  You didn't answer my question.
  - hakaaaaak 14y ago
    I did. Their argument was that due process was handled in the preceding two trials and due process should be denied because X and Y, but to the point that a relevant case was misapplied (which should result in appeal), they basically say "umm... that was case specific and yada yada yada we're right".
    - nialo 14y ago
      What exactly do you mean when you say "due process"? can you explain without using the actual words "due process"?
- rayiner 14y ago
  If I'm your lawyer, and you win, and the other party seeks an appeal to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what I write for you. Because it's not my job to insert my judgment about whether I think the Supreme Court should hear the case, my job is only to argue in favor of the interpretation that lets you win the quickest. In the context of Constitutional challenges to Congressional laws, the DOJ has the same job. They will first seek to have review denied because that's the quickest way for Congress to win. If review is granted, the Solicitor General, whose office is part of the DOJ, will have to drag his ass to the Supreme Court and argue strenuously in favor of upholding the Constitutionality of Congress's law. That's just the way the adversarial legal system works. Also, your Due Process point is way out of bounds. Due Process does not entail the right to Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court could deny the petition for no other reason than "it sounded boring" and there would be no Due Process violation.