With the exception of the cable companies decision, I’m not all that fond of any of today’s verdicts. Which isn’t all that surprising, the way things have gone this term.

The Ten Commandments decisions resolve nothing, other than that the tedious, unsubstantive debate ont he matter will continue. The Grokster decision will undoubtedly impair technological innovation. The journalism cases will further intimidate reporters from publishing leaked information, which will make government less acountable. And while there may have been federalism implications in the restraining order case that I’m not aware of, but it seems to me that one of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect us from people would do us harm. The plaintiff in this case had good reason to think her husband could harm her or her children. The cops did little to protect her. All three of her kids are dead. Seems to me the government failed, and should be held accountable for its failing.

All in all, a very bleak term. And we might lose Rehnquist and O’Connor, two-thirds of the only reason for hope these last few months. Two more Scalias would be a devastating setback for liberty. And should we get gridlock in the cofirmation process, compromise is likely to bring us two more Kennedys, not two more O’Connors.

I’m not a pessimistic guy. But it’s hard to see much to take heart in, right now.

UPDATE: Emerging opinion among those who’ve read the Grokster opinion (I haven’t) suggest Souter’s saying Grokster can be held liable for its marketing practices, not for the technology itself. That is, if Grokster can be held liable for damages only if it promoted its product as a tool for copyright infringement. I’d be much more comfortable if that’s the case.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 27th, 2005 at 12:27 pm by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.