When it comes to free speech, they've done a fairly good
job. And frankly, I
don't believe they are very fond of
corruption. My lay opinion is that they
will attempt to find
a middle ground. Maybe they'll send it on to Congress to
regulate, but that isn't really in line with their recent
track
record.
Did you read or listen to the arguments in the recent
gray
market copyright case (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.)?
There's a great summary over at
SCOTUSblog, but
reading the original is almost mandatory.
The public
interest may well be
coming back into vogue.
It really comes down to whether you believe
their rulings
are in line with your personal views. If you were, say,
Obama,
then you'd say they did mostly the right thing in
regards to the ACA. If you
were Romney, you'd probably agree
as well. However, if you were Ron Paul, you'd
violently
disagree.
It's hard to put politics aside and attempt to look
objectively at how they ruled and why they ruled that way.
I'm not a
constitutional lawyer, but I have extensively
studied SCOTUS rulings. And I
have come to respect the minds
behind the opinions, even if I respectfully
disagree. --- IANAL
Linguist and Open Source Developer [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|