Well, the problem is that Aereo probably could not have prevailed at SCOTUS, because SCOTUS looks to precedent. In this case, their interpretation of the precedent itself (Copyright Act of 1976) was accurate, even if that precedent is out of date in our eyes. If you want SCOTUS justices to innovate, you need to challenge the precedents at their fundamental level, or else point to other precedents that should invalidate or challenge them.

Bear in mind that the function of the Supreme Court isn't to propose new laws (legislate); it's to rule on existing laws. By its own mandate, the Supreme Court does not serve an innovative function in government. It serves an examination and arbitration function. If we want to change anything here, we'll have to start in the other branches of government, or else bring a case that sufficiently challenges the Copyright Act.

> Well, the problem is that Aereo probably could not have prevailed at SCOTUS, because SCOTUS looks to precedent. In this case, their interpretation of the precedent itself (Copyright Act of 1976) was accurate, even if that precedent is out of date in our eyes.

You are confusing enactments (things like the Constitution and statute law, like the Copyright Act) with precedent (prior rulings of courts applying the same law). These are fundamentally different things, thought the court looks to both

Sorry, was a misnomer on my part. I was using "precedent" in the broad sense, i.e., to mean a preexisting reference point. But you're quite right in that the term has a very specific legal meaning, and I should have been more mindful of that. (IANAL, and I should probably preface a lot more of my legal discussions with that.)

Nevertheless, I think my point still stands. Court needs to find, sort, and prioritize reference points essentially.

Well said.

Describing Roberts as liberal is a great stretch

Pretty sure he's the one who "saved" Obamacare when it went to Supreme Court.

1. "Obamacare" is an implementation of the Heritage Foundation's[0] health plan from the early 90s. It's "liberal" in the same sense that any Republican can be said to be "liberal."

2. Roberts has a deep and wide judicially conservative record. He cannot be called "liberal" in the context of American politics; it's not even up for debate. The man and his judicial practice is as conservative as they come.

3. I really don't see why it matters. The justices' political leanings have nothing to do with whether or not their decisions are "correct" or not (although it may provide insight into why they decide one way or another).

[0]www.heritage.org

Doesn't change the fact that other conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, and so on) voted against it and liberal justices voted for it. So Roberts could be said to be the most liberal of the bunch. The Aereo vote is pretty much the same as Obamacare vote, except Kennedy who is both anti-Obamacare and anti-Aereo.

Well, that 'fact' isn't very factual. The 'conservative' justices dissented from the majority opinion, but that doesn't mean that their rendering would have made Aerio's practices legal.

In a nutshell, the dissent would have also ruled against Aerio, just for a different reason than the majority. This sentence from Scalia's dissent should put things in perspective:

"I share the Court's evident feeling that what Aereo is doing (or enabling to be done) to the Networks' copyrighted programming ought not to be allowed."

Describing Obamacare as liberal is a bit of a stretch. - a Canadian

Bear in mind, the U.S. definition of liberal is still far to the right of what the rest of the world considers liberal.

And by the whole world you mean Western Europe and a few other countries. US is very liberal compared to many other places (like my own country).

Can I ask which country that is? It strikes me as odd to hear such a domestic US political rant from someone who doesn't live here. (or maybe you do live here now and are just comparing it to where you're from)

I live in Russia. I try to follow various happenings all around the world, nothing odd about that.

Agree. In India one has to pay exorbitant sums for poor medical care, forget about subsidised, good medical care.

Fair enough.

Obamacare was closely based off Republican proposals in the 90s (including Romney's implementation of it in Massachusetts).

Remember, Obamacare is the health care plan the Republicans proposed after rejecting any kind of single-payer universal plan. That the Republicans subsequently also opposed their own health care proposal speaks more to their basic coherence than their political ideology, per se.

I would not describe Roberts as liberal, per se. However, I would think that someone has got some dirt on him. No way to explain his voting record, otherwise.

All the judges were against it. The three who dissented just didn't agree on the reason.

Everything following this comment is a horrible derail. And would be expected from the plain text of the comment.