[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Transcript Online
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Transcript Online
- From: Jolley <tjolley(at)swbell.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 22:14:11 -0500
- Organization: Southwestern Bell Internet Services
- References: <OFE48B0D55.9E0905A6-ON88256C56.00552C2C@aero.org>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
I think the justices must have been very frustrated with S.G. Olson.
After repeated questions and run-around answers on what is a limit.
The justices finally paraphrase Olson's arguments just to see if he
knows how to say a simple yes (or no).
I like the remark from Justice O'Connor:
"But if we affirm here, is there any limiting principle
out there that would ever kick in?"
Olson's reply sounded like a no.
Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> Very interesting reading. The Justices were discussing the issue with
> Lessig, probing, exploring arguments, but with S.G. Olson, they were
> almost antagonistic....as in "OK what's the limit. GIVE ME A LIMIT. IF YOU
> CAN"T GIVE ME A LIMIT ONE DOES NOT EXIST" I think there is no question
> that they Supremes are leaning towards Lessig, the question is one of
> Judicial restraint and using the golden bullets.....