Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Stumpfed:(pdf)
In another Ohio case, two guys were given the death penalty for shooting a woman.
They were both there, but only one of them was the shooter. The guy whoprobably wasn't might not have been the shooter is arguing his death penalty sentence violates due process. Tricksy Scalia is pointing out things like, oh, but he shot at the husband, but the husband lived.
It's a case about how guilty do you have to be before the government may kill you with due process? My left-wing knee is jerking.
Ulysses Tory v Dead Johnny Cochran
I'm not Jeremy Blachman; I can't paraphrase Chereminsky's argument as a rap. He's pretty good though. The case is about, can speech be enjoined. There was a portion of the argument that was about a grammar quibble. Does "an injunction" mean any injunction, or this injunction? I remember this issue came up recently, perhaps at Volokh. It's an eats shoots and leaves kind of thing.
Dodd v US is about retroactivity of habeus actions, and interpreting an act of congress. I think it's safe to say this court doesn't take an expansive view of due process when it comes to habeuses.
Castle Rock is about whether a woman had a property interest in a protective order which the cops ignored.
Medillin v Texas Corrections Dept is procedurally tricky. Petitioner is asking for a stay, and they might not want to give it. It's the case about before Texas kills a Mexican, they have to check in with the consulate. But the issue the court is wrestling with is sovereignity. It's trying to make sure it remains the Supreme Court, and doesn't give up some of its power to international courts which look at treaty obligations. In other words, they are doing what the far right has been accusing them of not doing. That wasn't very clear. The right has been assailing Kennedy and others for paying too much attention to foreign courts and foreign legal trends, but here it is clear they are saying the buck still stops here.
For extra credit, review Missouri v Holland.
MGM v. Grokster.
Mostly it's about whether the Sony rule will hold - that's it's ok to build a machine, like a printing press, that can be used to infringe copyright, if it has significant non-infringing uses. There's also some confusion about what's left of the case if that happens, and an awareness that grokster is -mostly- infringing uses.
Can't predict how this one comes out. There was no discussion of the word grok itself; I'm hoping that will be a footnote. It's nearly midnight; I was able to avoid doing any useful work today.
David Post predicts an outcome here.
The main thing I did today was research on the Indiana Voter ID cases, after Hasen linked to my listserv post on the topic.
In another Ohio case, two guys were given the death penalty for shooting a woman.
They were both there, but only one of them was the shooter. The guy who
It's a case about how guilty do you have to be before the government may kill you with due process? My left-wing knee is jerking.
Ulysses Tory v Dead Johnny Cochran
I'm not Jeremy Blachman; I can't paraphrase Chereminsky's argument as a rap. He's pretty good though. The case is about, can speech be enjoined. There was a portion of the argument that was about a grammar quibble. Does "an injunction" mean any injunction, or this injunction? I remember this issue came up recently, perhaps at Volokh. It's an eats shoots and leaves kind of thing.
Dodd v US is about retroactivity of habeus actions, and interpreting an act of congress. I think it's safe to say this court doesn't take an expansive view of due process when it comes to habeuses.
Castle Rock is about whether a woman had a property interest in a protective order which the cops ignored.
Medillin v Texas Corrections Dept is procedurally tricky. Petitioner is asking for a stay, and they might not want to give it. It's the case about before Texas kills a Mexican, they have to check in with the consulate. But the issue the court is wrestling with is sovereignity. It's trying to make sure it remains the Supreme Court, and doesn't give up some of its power to international courts which look at treaty obligations. In other words, they are doing what the far right has been accusing them of not doing. That wasn't very clear. The right has been assailing Kennedy and others for paying too much attention to foreign courts and foreign legal trends, but here it is clear they are saying the buck still stops here.
For extra credit, review Missouri v Holland.
MGM v. Grokster.
Mostly it's about whether the Sony rule will hold - that's it's ok to build a machine, like a printing press, that can be used to infringe copyright, if it has significant non-infringing uses. There's also some confusion about what's left of the case if that happens, and an awareness that grokster is -mostly- infringing uses.
Can't predict how this one comes out. There was no discussion of the word grok itself; I'm hoping that will be a footnote. It's nearly midnight; I was able to avoid doing any useful work today.
David Post predicts an outcome here.
The main thing I did today was research on the Indiana Voter ID cases, after Hasen linked to my listserv post on the topic.
Comments:
Post a Comment
