And if you simply define a decision as "wrong", rather than "unconstitutional", and then carry as though your definition were the final word on the issue, you can render any decision at all striking down some legislative action as illegitimate. It's more than just "wrong" to retroactively (and potentially indefinitely) extend copyrights - it plainly and obviously conflicts with both the language and intent of the clause in the constitution that addresses such things. Of course, if we're all suddenly of the opinion that not even original intent means much, I guess we can just suck it up when somewhere down the road, the court agrees with the notion that a "well regulated militia" excludes ordinary, unorganized private citizens, too.
And stop putting words in my mouth. I have not stated that the Court has no function.
Right. You never said they couldn't speak, you just cut out their tongues. My mistake. So what sorts of interpretive issues can the Court engage in without being accused of being unelected philosopher kings, improperly seeking to thwart the will of Congress?
I just do not think that the Supreme Court of the United States needs to be meddling in picayune crap like whether a copyright ought to be for 5, 10, 50, or 100 years. What I want them to rule on is whether law enforcement -- or even worse a copyright holder -- has the right under the Constitution to conduct a warrantless search of my computer to see if I have any copyrighted works. That, at least, is a genuine Constitutional issue.
Huh? So, lemme see if I've got this straight - essentially, the Court has the power to interpret the word "unreasonable" in the Fourth Amendment, and make Congress stick to it, but interpreting the word "limited" in Article I is just way beyond the pale, and not a "genuine" Constitutional issue? Do you have a definitive list of which particular words in the Constitution are off-limits to them - and oh, by the way, something resembling an argument supporting that kind of completely arbitrary division into "genuine" and non-genuine issues for the Court - or is this sort of an ad-hoc thing, the "Nick Danger valid docket word list"?
After all, I'd sure hate for you to be seen in public, asking those unelected philosopher kings to substitute their judgement about what a reasonable search is in place of the divinely inspired judgement of Congress. Everyone knows that that's not a "genuine" Constitutional issue, and so if Congress passes a law mandating the attachment of an anal-probe module to your computer, so that you can be searched at will by the FBI and the RIAA...well, hey, that's the system, and you can just work to change that law legislatively, right? You wouldn't want to introduce such a patently trumped-up Constitutional issue into a court, would you? I'm sure a year's (or more) worth of rectal discomfort is a small price to pay for keeping that word "unreasonable" off the Court's list of "genuine" Constitutional issues, don't you think? God alone knows where the courts will meddle if we give them the job of deciding what is and isn't a reasonable search...
I'm sure you are, so long as you get to decide what is right and good. I'm not sure I trust you though, so I'm not ready to make you king.
Right. This is somehow different than when Nick unilaterally and without argument decides which words in the Constitution are "genuine" issues for the Court, and which aren't. At least, I think that's the impression I'm supposed to walk away with, although I'll be damned if I can see the difference.
Oh, wait - here's the difference. I'm perfectly willing to make my opinion about what's right and good known to the public at large, where they can then adjudge for themselves whether my notion of right and good accords with theirs, and whether this law is consistent with the Constitution, and whether the courts have fallen down on the job. Nick has...a word list to tell us what is and isn't properly a part of the court's purview.
Courts aside, it is patently obvious that this whole "constitutional" argument was backed into by people who started not with the Constitution, but with "how do we get this number we don't like changed?"
Oh, no - say it isn't so. Tell me it's not true, and that plaintiffs in constitutional cases are really always concerned with abstract principle, and not the practical effects of laws upon them.
Gimme a break. Until we institute the Nick Danger Purity of Motives Test™ as a part of filing suits, we're just going to have to settle for deciding whether or not a position is right or wrong on its merits, rather than impugning the presumed motives of people who walk into courtrooms.
They lost in Congress, so they went to Court with a stupid, trumped-up "Constitutional theory" that says that Congress cannot change its own laws.
As opposed to the wise, well-supported "Constitutional theory" that says that Congress has an absolutely free hand in this area, and is subject to not even the barest hint of external restriction. Here's hoping that the courts don't decide to add words like "unreasonable" and "abridge" to this list of non-genuine Constitutional issues...
This is the one ground on which the length recited in a particular law, taken in isolation, (as opposed to an established pattern of infinity-by-induction) would raise a Constitutional question.
IMO, the most reasonable interpretation of original intent is that "limited time" means "within the bounds of common-law perpetuities doctrine". This point was raised in dissent, and I do not believe that it was adequately addressed by the majority. At least this position provides a principled rationale for saying that, no, Congress can't pass a google-year term even though 10^100 is still "limited" in a technical sense.