Second, people are allowed to disagree with you, even after Aaron's tragic death, even when we can reasonably guess that Aaron would have taken your side in an argument, without being "tone-deaf" and "insulting". From what very little experience I had with Aaron, I feel confident that he would rather have had people debating him than become a card to be played by other people in arguments to shut people up.
Third, the trope of accusing people who disagree with you on HN of somehow being bought and paid for agents of some shadowy force would be offensive if it wasn't so stupid-sounding; so... for lack of any better word: lame. Really, Aaron? Rayiner is somehow connected to Westlaw? The evil forces of Lexis?
Finally, as I understand it, this story links directly to a service for which you collect money. Have I misread that somehow?
I will lobby and I will point out as much as possible that Lexis and West are part of a system, whether coordinated or not, that blocks access to public documents.
The Court's power comes from the Constitution, not its budget.
The Session Laws appear to be available only as PDFs, and I'm more interested in the Code in any event.
Lastly, the whole reason we are having this discussion is because of the death of Aaron Swartz. Aaron believed very strongly in open access to data. If you have a problem with that it's fine, but your arguments come across to me as A) strange, as though you have some connection to the entities you are defending (though you may not), and B) rather tone-deaf and insulting, whether or not you mean them to be. Aaron died for these principles.
And with that I think I've said enough.