Re:Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
by pdonis on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @06:22PM
(#26718119)
> You assume the majority ignored that additional information.
If they didn't, why is it never even mentioned in the opinion? Why does the majority not even acknowledge the fact that there are other facts involved, which do not support their conclusion?
Of course any answer I might propose would also be an "assumption" to you, but I'll propose one anyway: because the majority knew quite well that if they did mention or acknowledge any of those other facts, it would be obvious to anyone reading the opinion that their argument was not cogent. My reading of many, many other Supreme Court opinions over the years tells me that that kind of thing happens all the time. At least dissenting opinions are available, though it seems like the ones that really point out fundamental flaws, like this one by Thomas, never actually get any traction.
> The court can totally "assume for the sake of argument"
The court can of course do whatever it pleases; there is no higher court of appeal to overrule them, and the Justices serve for life so they can simply not care what anyone else thinks of their rulings.
That doesn't make it right when they twist the law, or outright ignore it, to produce rulings that are in accordance with their ideological preconceptions. Which, again, is something that happens all the time.
If they didn't, why is it never even mentioned in the opinion? Why does the majority not even acknowledge the fact that there are other facts involved, which do not support their conclusion?
Of course any answer I might propose would also be an "assumption" to you, but I'll propose one anyway: because the majority knew quite well that if they did mention or acknowledge any of those other facts, it would be obvious to anyone reading the opinion that their argument was not cogent. My reading of many, many other Supreme Court opinions over the years tells me that that kind of thing happens all the time. At least dissenting opinions are available, though it seems like the ones that really point out fundamental flaws, like this one by Thomas, never actually get any traction.
> The court can totally "assume for the sake of argument"
The court can of course do whatever it pleases; there is no higher court of appeal to overrule them, and the Justices serve for life so they can simply not care what anyone else thinks of their rulings.
That doesn't make it right when they twist the law, or outright ignore it, to produce rulings that are in accordance with their ideological preconceptions. Which, again, is something that happens all the time.