In Redline Detection v. Star Envirotech,[1] the Federal Circuit has affirmed (1) the PTAB substantive determination that Star’s patent claims[2] are not invalid as obvious and (2) the PTAB procedural refusal to allow Redline to submit a post-institution expert declaration in its attempt to challenge the patent.[3]
On procedure, the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Office must be given deference in interpreting its own regulations regarding PTAB process and that the PTO’s rules make sense as they are designed to encourage submission of “all of the efidence that supports the ground of unpatentability” at the petition stage. Here, although the PTAB rules do allow for submission of supplemental information – the PTAB was justified in denying the submission here since the petitioner gave no reason for the delayed submission other than cost-savings.
Although the PTAB rules (§ 42.123) suggest that supplemental filings may be made within one-month of a petition being granted – that simply might not work in many cases. Thus, this case stands for the proposition that, even when timely filed within the one-month deadline, a motion to submit supplemental information must be justified beyond merely being “relevant.” More broadly, the result here repeats the conventional wisdom that inter partes reviews are generally won/lost on the first-punch.
Star’s patent relates generally to the abstract idea of generating leak-identifying smoke for use in volatile environments such as a vehicle brake-system. On the merits, the PTAB found that the submitted prior art did not render the particularly challenged claims obvious.
= = = =
[1] Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., App. No. 2015-1047 (Fed. Cir. 2015), appealed from the Patent Trial Appeal Board’s final decision in IPR2013-00106.
[2] Claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,526,808.
[3] See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) (2012).
link to arstechnica.com
The role of inter partes reviews, an increasingly popular method for challenging patents, may also likely be driving down costs.
“It leads to NPEs with questionable patents going for smaller amounts—below the IPR threshold,” said United Patents COO Shawn Ambwani. An inter partes review can cost $250,000 to $450,000 through trial, but many IPRs settle at earlier stages at a cost of $100,000 or a bit more, he said. “These NPEs now tend to sue many companies in parallel, since the threat of an IPR causes them to try to get everyone quickly rather than build a track record of settlements.”
Lower settlement figures may be leading to a shotgun approach. The size of settlement payments drops, leading patent-holders to go after more targets. It could also encourage lawsuits against smaller companies, who are less able to wage a long legal fight and pursue attorneys’ fees.
Whatever the strategy is, many of 2015’s patent lawsuits were filed by a handful of attorneys. Five of the top 10 plaintiffs employ just two Texas lawyers: Austin Hansley and Craig Tadlock.
Fascinating.
How disappointing and de-motivating is it, as a new year starts, to see the same old pollution throughout this particular thread. See the egregious polluter at Comment 5 below, dismissing the efforts of Prof Crouch as “silly”. Then see the polluter’s silly and delusional reply at 5.1.1 to what Dennis very reasonably says to him at 5.1.
Dennis thanks for the Link to your eminently sensible Comments Policy. For the ongoing health of this blog, I sincerely hope you will enforce it energetically, impartially, imperiously and uninterruptedly, through this year. When cropping out, there is no need to apologize or explain to anybody. Just do it, for it is my sense that we all know the Rules, that we all (except the poster who calls himself “anon”) trust you to enforce them dispassionately, and that we all (including anon) do very much want them enforced.
It is amazing to me how anybody can reasonably be upset about the comment policy here.
It is more liberal than almost any other site on the Internet.
For example, I have seen multiple instances where commenters on here will publicly try to expose the identity of an anonymous poster.
On almost any other site this would get you banned. Yet, on here, many of those who have sought to expose anonymous posters are some of the most active.
“It is more liberal than almost any other site on the Internet.”
Lulz. We must hang out on different interbuts.
“For example, I have seen multiple instances where commenters on here will publicly try to expose the identity of an anonymous poster.”
Ooooo noes!
“On almost any other site this would get you banned. ”
Lolwut? Even the feminazis are into this practice, and they don’t usually get banzored, even when they go ahead and out people, rightly, or wrongly, trying to get them fired instead of simply publicly humiliated. Political opponents have had this happen frequently over the years, and I’ve never heard of anyone ever getting banned for doing that in political site circles (which is ultimately what the patent lawl circle is).
6. It is not surprising that you are defending exposing anonymous posters. I will leave it at that.
Ryan,
To your thought of “For example, I have seen multiple instances where [commentators] on here will publicly try to expose the identity of an anonymous poster. On almost any other site this would get you banned.”
What say you when it is the site operator that is encouraging an “exposition” of identity?
Not being “privy” to other “private” dialogues is one reason why (ahem, 6) I refuse to engage in private dialogues.
The ONLY reasonable answer is to have ONE set of rules, evenly and consistently applied.
Of course, this will (and should) sound familiar to Prof. Crouch, as this is the very same advice I gave him four years ago; the very same advice that would solve what his OWN link shows to be the blight here: Malcolm’s flagrant disregard for any set of rules and the subsequent abuse of this forum for his propaganda and one-way street monologue advocacy.
Funny how the very link that the professor offers SHOWS that Malcolm has been abusing this site for nearing a decade now – L O N G before I ever posted here. and yet the “concern” is with my posting, which, as I have explicated, is far better than Malcolm’s (and in direct rebuttal to “FYI” who again advances a banal “they are the same” position), while several of us will engage with the rhetorical t001 of ad hominem, my use is grounded in proper use based in actual facts, and I also post with regards to historical facts and law, I do not misrepresent such nor do I misrepresent what others post.
My ad hominem is effective because I know how to apply it. That those to whom I apply hit whine SOOOO much, while NEVER being able to show any shortcomings in my position is the “true” driver of what amounts to be nothing more than a “polite version” of political correctness.
Advancing the dialogue does NOT happen only with politeness, and in fact, (as I pointed out this morning on another thread), such fawning can obscure the dialogue and hide matters that should be treated more directly.
It is EXACTLY that situation that I have used the words of the poet – John Maynard Keynes:
“Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking.”
I don’t coddle the unthinking. That would be like feeding the wolf at the back door.
I am sure Boss Tweed would have loved nothing more than for Mr. Nast to “play nice.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
“anon” My ad hominem is effective because I know how to apply it. That those to whom I apply hit whine SOOOO much, while NEVER being able to show any shortcomings in my position
Bow down, everybody!
He’s a very serious person.
“Bow…serious person”
LOL – that mindless rambling the best you can do, Malcolm?
Pay attention my “FYI” friend – I give you Keynes and Nast and all Malcolm can do is mumble his short script nonsense.
And the typical WAH and load of C R P from MaxDrei….
Do you even know what it is that is being called silly at 5? It is certainly NOT in any reply to the professor.
Clearly not, as you jump (yet again) without thinking and merely react to a name you see without understanding.
It is the inconsistent hurdle placed specifically in my way. It is a silly hurdle, because OBVIOUSLY I can get around it.
As to “we all know the rules”…There is nothing “silly or delusional about the reply at 5.1.1. Of course, you should know this, and of course you just cannot help yourself and pollute these boars with your own posts. Take a closer look: the problem is the Uneven enforcement of those “known” rules. And you do know whom is the biggest offender (and yet you conveniently do NOT name that person, so let me help you: Malcolm.
Maybe BOTH you and the good professor should read the comments at the linked thread and see that it is Malcolm who has been a blight FAR LONGER than the time that I have been on these boards. He is approaching a full decade of the SAME C R P. Maybe it’s time for the good professor too to follow the personal advice I gave him FOUR years ago. Gee, I wonder why he has a problem doing that…? You know, those perceptions that Malcolm has something over him keep cropping up….
That “silly” post as you call it, is easily what is most eminently fair. Rules are meaningless if they are not uniformly, evenly and consistently enforced. Why in the world would you insinuate otherwise? To your comment of “ I sincerely hope you will enforce it energetically, impartially, imperiously and uninterruptedly, through this year.” I could not agree more – but CLEARLY that has not been the case (as if it were in fact the case, then my “silly” note at 5 would not have been necessary. As it is, the “rules’ – whatever those are – simply are NOT impartially being applied).
Prof. Crouch,
For the New Year, perhaps we can dispense with the rather silly personal IP address block….?
Anon – Happy to so long as you agree to follow the Patently-O comment policy. link to patentlyo.com
Happy to follow ANY policy that I see uniformly applied and maintained.
You live up to your end of that and we will have “no problems.”
This – of course, – has been my consistent position, and one that is ultimately objective and fair.
I feel like we’ve had this discussion before. I would ask that you re-read the Patently-O Comment Policy (available here link to patentlyo.com) and consider you last 50 posts and whether those posts move us toward a better space.
We have had this discussion before – and obviously you have f a i l e d to listen, just as you did before.
My personal advice to you some four years ago remains directly on point.
My response to your request to abide by rules ALSO remains – by far- the most complete and fair response.
I remain fair and consistent – and have “no dark” from which to emerge from.**
**I do not read your off-line comments, and merely respond to the title of your email. If you want me not to use a pseudonym – BAN them from everyone. There is ZERO fairness in wanting to apply a different set of rules to me.
“I do not read your off-line comments, and merely respond to the title of your email”
Lulz? D takes the time to address you, for actions you’re taking on his site, and you just blow him off?
Oh anon. How he stopped at a mere IP ban I do not understand.
Lots of things you “don’t understand,” 6.
Of what relevance then is your understanding to the items under discussion?
Prof. Crouch,
Prof. Crouch,
To those ends, here are suggestions that should be technologically feasible. You could limit the number of comments from any one source to a reasonable number, e.g., ten. You could also limit the number of characters per post to another reasonable number, say, 2000 (about 250 words). If you get too many instances of ten posts with 2000 characters each, you could limit the total characters per source to another reasonable number, say 10,000. The later might take some additional programming but should be doable.
Once set up, you could see how it goes and adjust the numbers.
Why bother with all that? How does that move us towards some “ends”?
6,
The “ends” are (truly) not nearly as important as the “means” to those ends.
Lots of ways to “improve the ecosystem” here.
Number one would be to eliminate the drive-by monologues that simply do not address the counterpoints put on the table for discussion.
And yet, we both know which “side” is guilty of that.
I think MM pretty much breaks this rule every single day: “Do not launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession.” I’ve seen many posts where he’s posted 90+ % of the comments, at least initially. And I’ve never seen him complaining about being blocked. Why is that?
Good question.
In fact, when Prof. Crouch tried out the Disqus system, in one day I pointed out twenty instances of where Malcolm violated the precious rules (and did this highlighting in ever a polite manner).
Guess which posts were removed.
Not Malcolm’s.
Even the link that the Prof. posted as “an example” contains comments that highlight that Malcolm has been a blight for what is approaching a full decade.
And yet, the likes of his Echoes just “don’t see” anything wrong with Malcolm’s posts (and Ned has even exhorted everyone to “enjoy his swagger“).
Let me know when you figure that one out.
I am not so sure I was referencing MM when I said “swagger.” I think I was referring to 6.
MM has a very low opinion of ambulance chasers, and their patent attorney/agent analogs who really do not respect the rights of others, but who are always looking for “angles.”
Ned,
His views are more extreme than that – do you remember even one instance where he has expressed “pro-patent” views…? (that is, a view for a strong patent system?)
And no, it was Malcolm’s swagger, not 6’s (which is less a swagger and more of a listless stumbling than a swagger).
Sure, in the case of Myriad. He still disagrees with Supreme Court on that one.
Instant Classic.
You pick the one case that he misses – by a mile – and that he expended more than 30,000 words in the immediate aftermath thereof (on a case he professed “not to care about”), when my ready and easy explication was so arduously ig nored by him (and his “convenient” lapses of understanding what the word “effectively” meant).
Do you have another? That one only exacerbates his 1d10cy.
Anon gifting us some early lulz this year.
I don’t think that the good professor is laughing all that much.
And he shouldn’t be.
But he should realize that ANY rules not uniformly applied simply will not work.
In what follows, my selective replacement of letters with numbers is my inexpert attempt to beat the filter.
Important Warning (above) from “anon”, addressed to he who runs this important blog:
“..he should realize that ANY rules not uniformly applied simply will not work.”
As we can all see from this Warning, it is “anon” who will first decide whether or not the Rules of Engagement of this blog are being “uniformly applied” and will then, in his absolute discretion, decide whether or not he personally will deign to respect these Rules.
Here a definition of “deign”:
link to merriam-webster.com
With anon around, I think the outlook is bleak. I think anon is simply not capable of writing in tones that others would recognise as collegial. He seems to think that his very individual s*rc*st1c, put down, I-know-it-and-you-don’t tone is fitting to this environment. He is very proud of it, despite numerous signals from the blogmaster that it is not only inap***riate but also disr3sp3ctful and even 0773ns1v3. For me it is bi7a33e, but anon seems to be unable to see any difference in substance between his default tone and that of (for example) MM. Is he in awe of, and trying to emulate, some cruel, sharp-tongued and self-congratulatory teacher he continues to admire and look up to, I wonder. If so, anon, bad mistake. It is not helping you to get on in your own life.
Happy New Year everybody. Going forward, I shall be putting my trust in Prof Crouch and Team, to come up with filter measures that will preserve collegiality on this blog (even if it means deletion of this posting). Long may the Blog flourish!
MaxDrei,
Your “politeness is enough” pitch is a meaningless bore.
CLEARLY, your view is faulty. I have pointed this out on the Testing Vehicle thread wherein your penchant for politeness pollutes by creating a a haze obscuring the discussion.
Further, you yourself have proven that you will refuse to engage – even when politely asked – on points that you simply find inconvenient for your advocacy ends.
Your “polite” path leads only to a meaningless echosystem, where NO development is possible. That – by any definition – is not flourishing.
HEY – did you bother to read the link provided by the Professor? Did you notice exactly who the blight is – and has been WAY before I ever posted?
You keep on neglecting such things. Once you open your mind to understanding, you would see that I am not dictating ANYTHING – all that I am doing is noting that the world indeed turns. EVERYONE decides for themselves what to post or not post. My tone is NO sharper or “cruel” than MANY others – and my content is directly on point, notwithstanding how that may make you “feel.”
As for your “feelings,” and your beliebs that you find my tone”cruel” or sharp-tongued”… Easy solution: 1) think 2) post better 3) repeat
If you are offended, then I suggest that you do two things: realize that it is your ideas being trounced that is what offends you, and THINK about why your ideas are being trounced (the second part is easy, as no matter how “cruel” you may find my posts, they are indeed instructive and have meaning for you to grasp – most definitely UNlike those of the true blight here. Your bleating whinges quite aside, you keep on wanting to ig nore the CONTENT of what I say, and that is a YOU problem.
Setting up a “polite” ec(h)osystem does NO ONE any good.
Collegiality should not – must not – come at the expense of thinking. See my quote from Keynes.
As for your desire – strange as it is – to totally ig nore Malcolm’s “contributions” approaching a full DECADE here, and your “thinking” there be no differentiation.. WAKE UP son.
“CLEARLY, your view is faulty. ”
Clearly Max is wrong! (OCPD)
MaxDrei,
To be nice and polite and all, here is the link to the comment on your polluting politeness:
link to patentlyo.com
“With anon around, I think the outlook is bleak. I think anon is simply not capable of writing in tones that others would recognise as collegial. He seems to think that his very individual s*rc*st1c, put down, I-know-it-and-you-don’t tone is fitting to this environment. He is very proud of it, despite numerous signals from the blogmaster that it is not only inap***riate but also disr3sp3ctful and even 0773ns1v3. For me it is bi7a33e, but anon seems to be unable to see any difference in substance between his default tone and that of (for example) MM. ”
Brosef, it’s called OCPD. It’s a real thing. In real life.
“Is he in awe of, and trying to emulate, some cruel, sharp-tongued and self-congratulatory teacher he continues to admire and look up to, I wonder. If so, anon, bad mistake. It is not helping you to get on in your own life.”
Nah, it’s just plain ol run of the mill OCPD.
LOL,
And the short script of 6’s instant “meds-illness” diatribe is just SOOOOO polite and all…..
Great Ecosystem, Prof.
Under Standards of Review on page 24, top:
“When asserting that a claimed invention would have been obvious, that party ‘must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence (sic) that a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teaching of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.’”
Even though the CAFC found effectively no evidence, is clear and convincing evidence the standard in an IPR? I thought a preponderance was enough.
Good point. See, e.g., the recent Gnosis appeals. The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in IPRs was outcome determinative there. I seriously doubt that Gnosis could have prevailed under a clear-and-convincing standard. I guess Judge Wallach’s clerk was not paying attention when s/he copied and pasted that particular passage for the standard.
Since there was some objection to Dennis’ “joke” about the “abstract idea” implicated by the claims, let’s compare Dennis’ formulation with the CAFC’s formulation in the recent Vehicle Intelligence opinion.
Dennis: the abstract idea of generating leak-identifying smoke for use in volatile environments such as a vehicle brake-system
CAFC in Vehicle Intelligence: “the abstract idea of testing operators of any kind of moving equipment for any kind of physical or mental impairment.”
Does everybody see the easy distinction? What makes Dennis’ formulation a very weak parody is that the use of smoke for leak detection is not an “abstraction” anymore than the “use of a chair for seating oneself” is an abstraction.
But “determining that someone is mentally impaired” is most definitely “an abstraction.” The key point is that within its scope the statement encompasses merely observing an operator and making the determination of “impaired” based on any criteria that the determiner chooses. There is no patentable structure necessarily implicated by the making of that determination, not even one that remotedly approaches the admittedly amorphous but objectively recognizable structure of “smoke”.
It does not matter at all for the purposes of the 101 analysis that there might be (or theoretically could be) a definable structure for performing the determination. What matter is that the statement unambiguously — and intentionally — includes within its scope abstract structureless logic that was never eligible for patenting and never will be.
When the only novel element in your patent claim is a “determination” made using logic (e.g., a computer programmed to apply rules) and that determination is preceded by a prior art data gathering step (e.g., obtiaining personal information about a subject) and followed by a prior art “control” step (e.g., administer old drug) there is always going to be a subject matter eligibility problem lurking. Whether that problem is surmountable or not will depend on the specifics of the prior art and other limitations in the claim.
This issue is never going away. If you don’t like how this fact of life affects your pocketbook, then consider finding another way to spend your money. There are lots of opportunities out there to spend your money! Just look around. Or you could innovate something and describe it in structural terms that distinguish it from structures in the prior art — that’s a great way to avoid subject matter eligibility issues.
And Malcolm’s claptrap C R P is never going away either.
How Fn sad.
All hail our new administrative overlords.
Glad to see that you are finally adjusting to the reality that IPRs are not going to go away just by waiving a private powerless magic wand over them on this blog. Now perhaps you can join in helping readers with useful, constructive, advice on how to effectively defeat them or use them?
Last I heard, a number of constitutional challenges are still pending.
What the CAFC has to say about the matter is hardly the last word.
a number of constitutional challenges are still pending.
IPRs aren’t going anywhere.
If anything violates the separation of powers, it’s the revocation of a vested property right by an administrator.
The SCOTUS has said as much . . . repeatedly.
The CAFC is on the wrong side of this.
Is not there a saying Paul, that is not over until the fat lady sings?
Yes, but we have not seen her even appear yet in any cert petition.
Paul,
do you want to have a clue as to when you were being an arse?
look for how quickly Malcolm jumps to defend you.
that is a sure sign that you are on the wrong side of the law (or at least the proper version thereof).
“anon” look for how quickly Malcolm jumps to defend you. that is a sure sign that you are on the wrong side of the law
LOL
Don’t forget folks: “anon” is a very serious person! That’s why he still can’t admit what Prometheus v. Mayo was all about. But he sure did love those claims until “poof” — they were gone.
And nobody could have seen that coming.
What a Chump.
I have never commented or given any indication how I feel about those specific claims, much less that I “love them.”
And more AccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcomDoes with the allusion to the Prometheus case in that Malcolm has never squared that case with the very precedents most on point – and not being changed – per that case.
“And nobody saw that coming” indeed.
“anon” I have never commented or given any indication how I feel about those specific claims,
Because they were only the claims at issue in one of the most important Supreme Court cases in modern patent law. Why would anyone bother “giving any indication” of their thoughts about those claims? LOL
Malcolm has never squared that case with the very precedents most on point
Meanwhile, back on planet earth this “squaring” was achieved hundreds of times, including dozens of times in direct response to this same silly cut-and-paste accusation that you’ve been shoveling around for years. And then I grew tired of repeating myself.
Once again Malcolm, you quite miss the point.
You mischaracterize my posts for something that they are not.
The discussion of law – at a higher level – is just NOT dependent on “loving” ANY one set of claims.
Quite in fact, the discussion has centered about your Ends-desired conclusory short script pronouncements that simple LACK the proper means of reaching your desired ends.
It is you with the shovel in hand and your own mantra of AccuseOthersOfThatWhichMalcomDoes (on a perpetual basis) that is the “same silly cut-and-paste accusation.”
Your “version” of merely proclaiming the Ends of “it has been squared” when you have provided ZERO means of walkign through ANY legal argument to actually square the discrepancies is NOT any better when you repeat that C R P dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times. ALL that that is is the mindless drive-by monologue that you engage in that expressly DOES NOT engage the counter points presented to you.
You mighty try stopping repeating yourself – and your tired monologues – and actually ENGAGE this year. It would be a nice end to the upcoming (February) mark of a decade of the same C R P from you.
But however “nice” that may be, I seriously doubt that you have either the intelligence nor the ethics to actually engage in that proper manner, and simply expect you to continue to post in the blightful manner that you have practically always have. I would absolutely love to be wrong in this expectation.
Yes, we see what you did there, and no, it’s not as cute as you might think or as useful as just reporting the news.
No idea what comment 1 is attempting to imply. Not only is this an unusually thorough Fed. Cir. opinion, this was indicated to be a corrected (presumably re-submitted) IPR petition. Also, footnote 1 says: “The ’808 patent underwent two ex parte reexaminations. The first ex parte reexamination certificate issued in July 2011: (1) claim 9 was patentable as amended; (2) new claim 10 was added and determined to be patentable; and (3) claims 1–8 were not reexamined. ” Also, the decision indicates that the petitioner did not suggest any reason why the requested supplemental response information could not have been provided with the petition.
In short, since there had been post-grant proceedings at the same patent already, the petitioner was not in a good position for its motion for submitting additional evidence. This was not likely to be a situation in which the petitioner could argue that it was caught by surprise by the patent owners responses and thus unexpectedly needed to provide rebuttal evidence.
P.S. As a result of this IPR decision, the petitioner and its privies are estopped from any further challenging, in or out of the PTO, of patentability on the basis of any patents or publications.
Paul F. Morgan might have missed Prof. Crouch’s interjection of some unfunny Alice humor into his write-up of a case that had nothing to do with Alice.
Yes, I had missed the inside joke of using the now-highly-provocative word “abstract.”
Thanks
Paul,
Robert’s coment is directed to:
“Star’s patent relates generally to the abstract idea of generating leak-identifying smoke for use in volatile environments such as a vehicle brake-system.”
The real “joke” here is that ALL patent claims can be said to be “relate generally to the abstract idea of” as THAT IS WHAT PATENT CLAIMS DO.
This “joke” is nothing more than the UNlimited sweep of the “Gist/Abstract” sword at work.
Anon, I would agree with you that all patents can be abstracted into a principal. So the real question that has to be answered is whether that principle in the abstract is being applied to transform the principal into an inventive application. That is why I think the second step is always the most important step.
Ned,
At times (but only at times, and only when convenient for your agenda), you show an appreciation for historical context.
It is my fervent hope that in this new year you show an appreciation of history – even (or especially) when it is NOT convenient for you to do so.
to wit: in this immediate thread you reflect on the phrase “principle in the abstract”
Do you realize that this is but one of MANY equivalent phrases sounding in “inventive gist,” “spirit of the invention,” “gist of the invention,” or simply and plainly “invention,” that the Court had been granted authority by Congress (in an earlier statute) to set the meaning thereof through the t001 of common law evolution, but had F A I L E D to do so and had instead engaged in an anti-patent pogrom, which resulted in Congress rising up and rebuking the Court in the Act of 1952, resetting the single paragraph into an expanded law: that of 101/102/103/112, and – critically – removing that authority?
Congress removed the Court’s authority to set the meaning of the word “invention,” instead opting to create and install the law of 103: a law expressly outside of the domain of the judicial t001 of “common law.”
It is absolutely critical that the difference between statutory law and common law by noted and diligently maintained. The judicial branch acts ultra vires when it attempts to use common law evolution in the place that Congress acted to remove that authority.
Even you (perhaps unwittingly) posted an article (sadly behind a paywall) written by Judge O’Malley which exhorted the bar, academia, and any other “friend of the court” to NOT pursue changes to statutory law through the power of the courts.
The law as written by Congress is actually simple and lacks any ambiguity (from which the Court may attempt to insert its views), and in the case of 101 was meant as a wide open welcoming gate.
The words of Congress have been corrupted and misused by the current Justices . And ALL those who blindly drink that Kool-Aid and mindlessly point up to a broken scoreboard and do not realize that the real issue is the FACT that the scoreboard is broken, and that the judical branch is EVERY BIT constrained by the separation of powers doctrine and the notion that its own actions are NOT above the law – ALL of these merely continue to make a muckery of the law.
I sincerely hope that you stop being one of those, merely because the ends are the type of ends that you want to arrive at.
Comments are closed.