Just thought I’d mention that a program exists to help judges with cases that involve science or technology:
http://www.aaas.org/page/court-appointed-scientific-experts-case From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Hass Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:36 PM To: TV Or Not TV Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Supremes find against Aereo The problem, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in between. The population of people who get this technology and is licensed to practice law is small. Adding the filter of "making it understandable to people outside the field" makes it even smaller. And while it would be nice to always have that small of a population involved in every case, it can't always happen. That said, I expect good members of the judiciary to be able to educate themselves on issues that face them. Depending solely on the data presented in the courtroom tends to lead to really shitty decision making. And when it comes to the highest court in the land, if they can't get one of their clerks to go do some research, then I'd gently encourage them to GTFO the bench and let people who are willing to have a crack at this. On Jun 25, 2014 6:45 PM, "PGage" <[email protected]> wrote: I think Doug is right about this; it is the job of the advocates involved to provide the court with the required background and context to understand the legal arguments. They do this in their briefs and supporting documents, and in their oral argument. You may be right that the court did not properly understand the issues, but even if so, I would place most of the blame for that on the lawyers arguing the case. Also, I would not put too much weight on what the justices say in their questions during oral argument. They have very bright, very young clerks who write their own briefs and drafts after oral argument and before voting and writing supporting and dissenting opinions, so that even if there were mistaken assumptions during questioning at oral argument, a lot of those are typically corrected and modified prior to voting and writing. Obviously I am not saying SCOTUS always gets it right (particularly the Roberts Court); but I don't think many of their problems stem from a failure to understand technical details of whatever field the case is framed in. For the record, while there has been some public discussion of Justice Elena Kagan's sexual orientation, I believe it is non-controversial that she identifies as a cis-female. On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Doug Fields <[email protected]> wrote: I would think that that’s the entire purpose of the oral arguments and briefs before the Court. If I were arguing a complicated case, be it a new technology or any other sort of esoteric concept, I think it would be in my best interests to find somebody who can translate those concepts into terms understandable to a group of middle-aged judges, *because* they shouldn’t be expected to have the working knowledge to understand the subject beforehand. Pouring through the transcript now. Might have to switch to the audio of the oral arguments (I'm about 20 pages in and want to throw my laptop across the room), but the transcripts seem to back my perspective. From the first few minutes of the oral arguments, they've defined a cable company as a business that receives signals or programs broadcast by television stations. Justice Breyer compares "phonograph records" in a music store to a public performance. Then there's this from Justice Kagan, "if Aereo has the hardware in its warehouse as opposed to Aereo selling the hardware to the particular end user, that is going to make all the difference in the world as to whether we have a public performance or not a public performance," which illustrates that the concept of a nebulous cloud with non-localized storage is so far above his head it is laughable and sad at the same time. Both the military and the IRS have their own courts because the specificity of their laws require some knowledge to render opinions. I'm simply suggesting these people, wise as they may be in the law, don't comprehend the nuance of the technology they ruled against. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
