Off-Topic Rant: Dear Supreme Court…. FU!!!!!

Seriously, this morning was a waffle on Supreme Court for me. First, the upheld the first sale doctrine (the fact that if you buy something, you have the right to re-sale).  Which was under threat by an interpretation that the Constitution only protected first sale of goods made in the USA. And international goods were not protected.  Which considering how few goods are 100% made in the USA could have been catastrophic (basically every electronic device would have been prohibited from re-sale).  So this was a no brainer IMHO. 

So why am I fuming !@#$% mad?

Because the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case of RIAA vs Jammie Thomas. Who was fined $222,000 for sharing 24 songs – and at one point the award was in the millions.  Now we can debate the morality of file sharing, downloading, etc. And if you want, let’s go at it in the comments.  Because frankly, RIAA and the copyright cartel have engaged in more theft, abuse and fraud than anyone else.

But the simple fact is that those songs are 99 cents each.  24 songs and a $222,000 fine is basically a fine that approaches 100,000x the value of the stolen goods. 

And in light of the Eighth Amendment – “Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”; seems to me to be a direct violation of the Constitution.

And to most of us folk, it essentially boils down to a deep pocket lobbying group who has spent millions bribing corrupt legislators (Senator Hatch may you choke on tortilla chip). In order to protect an extinct and abusive business model.

Yes, this case should have been heard.  And I’m not saying she isn’t guilty. I am saying that a 100,000x fine is disgustingly and unconstitutionally excessive – a $2,200 fine is what she should be fined.

Shame on the Supreme Court.  Shame! SHAME! SHAME!!!

 

Total off-topic rant on recent SCOTUS decision

Of course…while I say it’s off topic, it did just dawn on me that this decision could potentially affect the sale of used imported firearms. Technically, this decision could prevent the sale of any used imported firearms.  I seriously doubt that would happen. But well, I seriously doubted a woman who spilled coffee on herself with win McDonald’s $1 million Monopoly prize.

http://blogs.forbes.com/danielfisher/2010/12/13/supreme-court-rebuffs-costco-in-copyright-challenge/

—

Gray Market – a term describing the importation of products manufactured in foreign lands by means not officially sanctioned by the manufacturer.
(ie: Camera is made and sold in Korea. For all intensive purposes, it’s identical to the one sold in the U.S.  An individual in Korea buys a 100 and ships him to his brother’s shop in NYC. They’re sold as a discount. Often manufacturers do not provide warranty coverage for such products.)

Frankly, as long as they a) bought the item and b) paid any customs fees or import duties.  Then it should be legal.
The only issue should be if one of the above is untrue, and in which case, it should be pursued by those legal channels.
A company might not recognize or warranty the item, that is up to their warranty policy, and that is fair IMHO. But that’s all a company should be able to do.

—
So what’s the problem?
Essentially, Costco imported a bunch of watches that they were going to sell at below MSRP. No problem there in my book.
The watch manufacturer sued. A defense of first sale was made. Which is basically, once I buy something – I own it. And I can do what I damn well please with it. (ie: If I buy a car from Ford, Ford has no right to say whether I can sell that car to someone else or not).
Well, this is pretty much established law in the U.S., but our conniving legislating judicial system decided to find a way around this and aid the even more conniving copyright cartel. They decided that our law only applies to items manufactured in the U.S.
There are a few problems with that interpretation:
1) An item is an item, it’s creation point should not enact different legislation. To put it simply, if I make a widget in PA and the same widget in RI. Different laws should not apply due solely to location.
2) In an America that is increasingly NOT manufacturing, this poses a greater influence. Probably 98% of products come from foreign lands. Think that’s crazy, realize we don’t manufacturer transisters in the U.S. anymore. So any electronic device has a foreign component.  So essentially, this could end the resale of any products in the U.S.
3) What few manufacturing jobs we have left will be inclined to move out of the U.S.  Why not? If I make a bicycle in the U.S., you can buy it and sell it used.  But if I make it in China, I can claim copyrights, and you can’t sell that bicycle at your yard sale unless you pay me $$$. Essentially, we can take away the price gap between new and used, so that you’ll just buy a new one anyways.
Granted….a lot of this is all “slippery slope”, but in life, I’ve come to believe that the “slippery slope” is NOT a fallacy, but a fact of life.  Take copyrights in general, it was said they were originally too short. So a few years were added, then a few more. People exclaimed that we were headed toward perpetual copyrights – and were dismissed as ludicrous. A 100 yrs later, and they’re pretty much right on.
—
All this over some watches that Costco imported…
Oh yes, so what is actually involved here is not even the watch. But the fact that the company printed a logo (their logo being copyrighted).  So for those thinking this would only apply to copyrighted items – you forget ya. This can be applied to anything. Take a Ford Taurus…oops, the Ford logo is copyrighted.  So basically ANYTHING with a logo can now have this protection applied.
And how ludicrous is the opinion that the first sale (based on a fairly long practice of common law for several thousand years) doesn’t apply to foriegn goods. I guess the Bill of Rights should not apply to foreignors who become U.S. citizens.

This goes back to my point that America is royally screwed up because we have a legal system rather than a judicial system. Rather, our laws are always about the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. If one can find a flaw in the wording, and a different way to read those words, then they can make a case.
“Lead, Follow, or get out of the way”
Really, that was a murder threat because it is well known that lead is the primary substance used in the bullets of guns.

 

Justice Stevens to retire (no surprise here)

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has announced he will be retiring. This really comes as no surprise. CNN tried to paint Stevens as a moderate. But let’s face it, there is a really easy litmus test, if they retire under a conservative – they’re a conservative and if they retire under a liberal, they’re a liberal.

So what does this mean for the gun rights community?

It does not really change the status quo or balance of the court. There is a slight chance it could weaken the left. Stevens wrote many dissents, and was often the leadership end of the left. If Stevens is replaced before McDonald is heard, we’d have a SCOTUS line-up featuring two new and rather young liberals. One of which does not strike me as all that bright (Sotomayor). Facing much more experienced and stronger individuals.

That said, one item about this greatly disturbs me. The mention of the possibility of appointing Janet Napolotino to the Supreme Court. Yes, the former governor of Arizona who is now head of Homeland Security. Yes, the one who pretty much declared conservatives and liberals a threat to security – and who is very anti-gun.

I am not too concerned at this point. Because I think there would be far too many objections for her to be viable. But if such proves to be a serious consideration, I will be sure to raise a ruckus. This is one woman who I deem to be an extremely dangerous threat to liberty.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/09/stevens.biography/index.html?hpt=T2

Transcript of Oral Arguments in McDonald Case

77 pages…

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1521.pdf
(H/T Snowflakes In Hell)

This has the potential to be the most significant court decision in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

***

Reading through…so far, my thoughts are “Roberts” is an intelligent man, never wager $ in a chess game with him.

—

Scalia hit with a thought I had myself “Let’s assume that the only reason it is there and the only purpose it serves is the militia purpose. Isn’t that militia purpose just as much defeated by allowing the States to take away the militia’s arms as it would be by allowing the Federal Government to take away the militia’s arms?”

Scalia hits it out of the park again… “See, the right to keep and bear arms is right there, it’s right there in the Bill of Rights. Where do you find the right to self-defense?  You — you want us to impose that one on the States but not — not the explicit guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. That seems very strange.”

*****

The final most important words…

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  “The case is submitted.”

Sotomayor confirmed 68-31

Sotomayor was confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice. While it’s pretty well understood that she is no friend of the 2nd Amendment. I think w could have done much much worse.

She is replacing a liberal judge, so the SCOTUS will essentially remain status quo. Were McCain to have won we might have had a chance of a conservative replacement. We all pretty much new that we were going to get an anti-gunner with any appointee by Obama.

Which is why I am not bothered by this confirmation. Frankly, I found Sotomayor to be unimpressive, especially for a SCOTUS candidate. Her answers during confirmation hearings were dodgy. Her reasonings tend to be week and emotionally driven. Many of her opinions have been over-turned. Is she qualified? Maybe… but I think if not for her gender and ethnicity she would not have been nominated. I believe for this reason, she will be a weak player – and this will be to our advantage.

When a Justice like Roberts writes an opinion, be it on the majority or opposition side, he provides a strongly reasoned and well supported statement. This is something that I think Sotomayor will be incapable of. She will likely be a token vote. Taken for granted that she will vote with the progressive left. It is unlikely that she will be capable of swinging the undecided votes; something Roberts has demonstrated a nack for doing. Nor will Sotomayor leave a legacy of atrong opinion statements to support future legal decisions for many years down the road.

Folks, while Sotomayor may stink for our cause. We could have done so so much worse. We could have found ourselves facing a strong intelligent judge. Instead we got a mediocre opponent in order to satisfy political correctness.

We sdnt gain any ground, but we held our territory.

IMHO

Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court

It’s probably bad, but it probably could have been much much worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.bio/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/sotomayors-judicial-record-battlefield-critics-advocates/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Tried to find what her position on the 2nd Amendment is, not expecting it to be much in our favor.  Did find this discussion. Seems like she dodged the question by taking the view that the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated to the states.  With the hope and increasing likeliness that we’ll see incorporation on the 2nd Amendment.  I wonder what affect this will have on her? I am concerned that she will be one of the SCOTUS justices to stand in opposition of incorporation.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=f56923b6e3b018fc3c4e1141ef5be6cc&p=2213546#post2213546

***

But not much worse….

“She also once said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”” [1]