Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
The assumption that Judges are going to act in their own self interests in preference to the law comes up quite frequently on these forums, and is simply not justified in almost all cases.
|
I wasn't saying they would act in self-interest, or suggesting that they recuse themselves. Mentioning that there can be recusals when there is financial self-interest involved wasn't meant to say they should recuse themselves. Here's the problem with the recusal theory: It's far more likely they would act in accord with their political predilections than financial ones.
In a case like this, where there's no clear liberal or conservative position, it would impossible to predict how justices would vote. However, well, they are political appointees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
I suspect that any traditionally published judge, no matter how eminent and respected, is making a similar pittance to most other traditionally published authors.
|
Justice Thomas received a $1.5 million advance
Sotomayor’s Book Advances From Knopf Surpass $3 Million
Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
The resistance to what Google is trying to do here is a classic example of intellectual property laws, at least as big publishing wants them interpreted, acting against the public interest.
|
If the publishers win in the end, I agree with that! I like the Google book search, I've used the results in posts here, and it doesn't have anything to do with my buying, or not buying, anything.
There's no circuit split, and so no reason for the Supremes to butt in. I hope they leave as is.