::: dahlbergcentral.com ::: i don't need to pee pee, i just need to rock

I was away from my desk for much of yesterday, so even though my boss excitedly told me that Obama would be announcing his nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday morning, I still didn't see it until later that afternoon. Judge Sotomayor's name is vaguely familiar to me (I think perhaps I've read one of her decisions somewhere, but I can't say where), but beyond that and what the NBC Evening News last night and Morning Edition on NPR this morning had to say about her, that's the extent of my knowledge of the nominee.

And then I sat down for lunch here and thought I'd at least skim through the news while I ate my soup. This was the first story on the MSNBC ticker on MSN:

GOP faces delicate task in fighting Latina pick
All-out assault on Sotomayor could alienate Hispanic and women voters
President Obama nominated federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court yesterday, putting her in line to become the nation's first Hispanic justice and creating a difficult political equation for Republicans as they weigh how aggressively to fight her appointment.
An all-out assault on Sotomayor by Republicans could alienate both Latino and women voters, deepening the GOP's problems after consecutive electoral setbacks. But sidestepping a court battle could be deflating to the party's base and hurt efforts to rally conservatives going forward.
In introducing Sotomayor at the White House yesterday morning, Obama hailed the 54-year-old appeals court judge as an accomplished and "inspiring" individual with a compelling life story. She would replace Justice David H. Souter, who was appointed by President George H.W. Bush but became a reliable member of the court's liberal wing.

Senate Republicans responded with restraint to the announcement yesterday, and their largely muted statements stood in sharp contrast to the fractious partisanship that has defined court battles in recent decades. Leading conservatives outside the Senate, however, did not hold back, targeting a pair of speeches in which Sotomayor said appellate courts are where "policy is made" and another in which she said a Latina would often "reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Critics also targeted her support for affirmative action, with Rush Limbaugh calling her a "reverse racist" in his syndicated radio program, citing a case in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who claimed discrimination in hiring practices.

There is obviously more in the link; I've only highlighted the first couple of paragraphs. But it's the headline and the insinuation in those early paragraphs that have my back up.

To suggest, as reporters Shailagh Murray and Michael D. Shear do, that Republicans face a choice of either opposing Sotomayor and "alienat[ing] both Latino and women voters" or conceding Sotomayor's confirmation and staying in those voters' good graces, is, I feel, both a naive and bipolar view of politics in general and this nomination in particular. It's also more than a little offensive -- and I say that as a Democrat. It assumes that identity politics -- your race, gender, creed, what have you -- is far more important than, say, a judge's positions or temperament. It assumes that any nominee who is the member of a minority should or may enjoy some special protection in that nomination process as a result. It assumes that voters themselves are stupid, and are unable to distinguish between a legitimate question regarding a nominee's record or ideas and their basic identity -- and thereby willing to punish anyone who dares question their nominee.

It is, in short, an offensive and undemocratic notion. And it's in the Washington Post, stated almost as if it were the Conventional Wisdom of the political class -- which is odd, since nowhere in the entire piece does it quote anyone who suggests that the GOP will feel the wrath of women or Hispanic voters if they oppose the nomination. The closest they get is Chuck Schumer, warning the GOP to oppose Sotomayor "at their peril" but never really saying why that's so.

So that's my complaint for the day. It seems like it's the same things we talk about year after year: can we, for once, have a discussion about politics and law without someone polarizing the positions into two camps and then treating it like it was Wrestlemania XIV?

Labels: law, news, politics

posted by Gus at 12:46 PM | |

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this one. WIRED's Elliot Buskirk has a story from PC World about new laws requiring used CD stores to thumbprint some customers/sellers:

You'll need to be thumbprinted and present a driver's license before selling CDs in Florida and Utah as required by a new law that has already passed in those states, and could pass in Rhode Island and Wisconsin too (and potentially elsewhere).

Used CD stores and pawn shops in states that pass the law are also barred from paying cash for CDs, offering store credit instead, and must retain CDs for 30 days before reselling them. (Surely, RIAA lobbyists are behind this on some level).

Seriously. What. The. Hell? Used CDs require identification? Will there be a federal database of everyone who realized they'd made a poor choice in purchasing that Nickelback album? The whole point of the current copyright law is that if you legally purchase something (a book, CD, painting, what have you), then you own it, and you can do what you want with that physical copy -- the original copyright holder can't stop you from selling it or shredding it.

Except, of course, now we have laws to find out who you are.

This is the second stupidest copyright-related comment I've seen/heard today, and in the same vein. The first came this morning, on NPR, in a story about Stanford's Fair Use Project, in which the Progress and Freedom Foundation's James DeLong talked about how Fair Use was so unfair, man, and it should be "constricted" (his word, I kid you not -- 5:33 in the piece) rather than expanded. No surprise there, I suppose, since the nonprofit PFF is funded by virtually every major digital media and communication company in the country, but still: "there's too much fair use going on".

Sheesh.

UPDATE: Here's Ars Technica on the new law. Relevant quotes:

The legislation is supposed to stop the sale of counterfeit and/or stolen music CDs, despite the fact that there has been no proof that this is a particularly pressing problem for record shops in general. Yet John Mitchell, outside counsel for the National Association of Recording Merchandisers, told Billboard that this is part of "some sort of a new trend among states to support second-hand-goods legislation." And he expects it to grow.

and

Why this trend, and why now? It's difficult to say, but to be sure, there is no love lost between retailers who sell used CDs and the music industry. The Federal Trade Commission has scrutinized the music industry for putting unfair pressures on retailers who sell used CDs, following a long battle between the music industry and retailers in the mid 90s. The music industry dislikes used CD sales because they don't get a cut of subsequent sales after the first. Now, via the specter of piracy, new legislation is cropping up that will make it even less desirable to sell second-hand goods.

Interesting to note that this has absolutely nothing to do with p2p piracy, but that the recording industry is leveraging that threat to get this effective change to copyright law. The question to ask, I suppose, is whether the First Sale Doctrine (under federal copyright law) trumps a state's ability to regulate its own commerce (ostensibly the purpose of the new laws, even if that's clearly not what they're designed to do)?

Labels: copyright, fair use, first sale doctrine, law

posted by Gus at 4:02 PM | |