[lugsoul]

He didn't say it would be a challenge for the Court. He said it would be a challenge for future generations. And if you don't think it will be, just consider the implications of differences between Supreme Court rulings on copyright law and the way the rest of the world views copyrights. Do you think intellectual property recognizes national boundaries?

[exmarine]

He didn't say it would be a challenge for the Court. He said it would be a challenge for future generations. And if you don't think it will be, just consider the implications of differences between Supreme Court rulings on copyright law and the way the rest of the world views copyrights. Do you think intellectual property recognizes national boundaries?

Once you toss original intent as the SCOTUS did long ago (and I can cite numerous cases that produced phantom rights out of thin air and perverted the Free Exercise Clause), then the door is open to ANY rationale for interpretation, isn't it? One relativized and subjected to ideological preferences, then ANY ideological precedent can be introduced, even an international one. The Everson case in 1947 introduced the cockamamey "Wall of separation" doctrine (TOTALLY BOGUS HISTORICALLY), and look at what has happened since - ruling after ruling restricting prayer and posting of the 10 commandments. I have no doubt that eventually the SCOTUS will see to it that Christians are ARRESTED for preaching the gospel! (unless they are stopped now).