24 thoughts on “20 Second Design Patent Damages Survey

  1. MM, I think most people responding simply look at Garland’s credentials, not who nominated him.

    However, I have heard that the left is really not happy with the choice and would want to revisit the nomination if a Democrat wins the election. I assume the primary reason for Garland’s nomination is that he is such an excellent jurist that it will be hard not to seat him and Obama want his man on the court.

    1. I assume the primary reason for Garland’s nomination is that he is such an excellent jurist that it will be hard not to seat him and Obama want his man on the court.

      Of course. If you take the SCOTUSblog poll at face value, it’s a tiny minority who’d prefer to see a more conservative judge be nominated (no doubt even fewer would want to see another gun-loving, misogynist big0t “originalist” like Scalia).

      Republicans loved Garland when he was nominated to the court of appeals. So did Democrats.

      I have heard that the left is really not happy with the choice and would want to revisit the nomination if a Democrat wins the election

      Some see it as a missed opportunity, for sure. But I’m not aware of anybody who wouldn’t take this guy in a split second over whatever Superbork nominee the Repubs are pining for.

      The obvious point is that people voted for Obama for a lot of reasons, including the fact that he gets to appoint Supreme Court nominees when there’s a vacancy. Republicans, of course, simply aren’t up to the task of governing and haven’t been for decades. They know how to start wars, the know how to give rich people money, and they know how to stick it to everyone who’s not in their sad little tribe.

      1. MM, just a note regarding the so-called Biden rule, the last time a Supreme Court nominee was confirmed in an election year when the Senate and President were from opposite parties was in the 1800s.

        The precedent for inaction is of long standing. That both parties have postured on both sides of this issue in recent decades not not change the de facto precedent.

        1. Please prove that “The precedent for inaction is long standing”.

          “During the Republican debate Saturday evening, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said, ‘We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year.'”

          “That’s not quite true: Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, an election year.”

          link to washingtonpost.com

          The Constitution says nothing about an election year.

          1. Accessibility for screenreader
            Home Page
            Politics
            Opinions
            Sports
            Local
            National
            World
            Business
            Tech
            Lifestyle
            Entertainment
            Crosswords
            Video
            Photography
            Washington Post Live
            Live Chats
            Real Estate
            Cars
            Jobs
            WP BrandConnect
            Classifieds
            Partners

            washingtonpost.com
            1996-2016 The Washington Post
            Terms of Service
            Privacy Policy
            Submissions and Discussion Policy
            RSS Terms of Service
            Ad Choices

            Wonkblog
            What happens when a Supreme Court justice dies in an election year? Nobody really knows.
            Resize Text
            Print Article
            Comments 47
            Book mark article
            Read later list
            Saved to Reading List
            By Max Ehrenfreund February 13

            Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on Saturday, creating an unusual vacancy on the Supreme Court. (Jewel Sawad/Getty Images)

            Conservative lawmakers are unlikely to allow President Obama to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday.

            During the Republican debate Saturday evening, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said, “We have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year.”

            That’s not quite true: Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in 1988, an election year. But the situation rarely comes up. A seat has opened on the Supreme Court during an election year only once every few decades.
            Texas judge: Scalia died of natural causes
            Play Video1:23

            There does not appear to be an established procedure for handling vacancies that arise just months before an election. As a result, partisans will be free to offer interpretations of the court’s history to buttress their positions on Obama’s eventual nominee.
            Recent election-year confirmations

            Kennedy’s 1988 confirmation isn’t a perfect precedent. As Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, argues, that seat on the court had been vacated much earlier — in the summer of 1987. His nomination was delayed into President Ronald Reagan’s last year in office only because Reagan had to withdraw the nomination of Robert Bork. Rejecting Kennedy, and denying Reagan the chance to fill the vacancy before the end of his term, would have left the Supreme Court without a ninth justice for a year and a half.

        2. Ned: The precedent for inaction is of long standing.

          No. Wrong. False. Complete h 0rseh0ckey. (And I’d love to know the source for that disinformation, by the way — some beltway rag, or some Republican fanb0y site or both?)

          Here’s the facts

          link to scotusblog.com

          The historical record does not reveal any instances since at least 1900 of the president failing to nominate and/or the Senate failing to confirm a nominee in a presidential election year because of the impending election. In that period, there were several nominations and confirmations of Justices during presidential election years. …

          n two instances in the twentieth century, presidents were not able to nominate and confirm a successor during an election year. But neither reflects a practice of leaving a seat open on the Supreme Court until after the election.

          Thanks for playing.

          The precedent for inaction is of long standing.

          1. And another analysis:

            link to scotusblog.com

            So, that means, of our forty-four presidents, forty have had the opportunity to make Supreme Court appointments, and thirteen of those, nearly a third, have appointed nineteen Justices during presidential election years. (Combined with lame-duck presidents who made Supreme Court appointments, the total comes to nineteen presidents, or nearly half of all presidents, who have made Supreme Court appointments during or right after presidential elections.)…

            There is, in short, no historical support for the claim that the Senate has a tradition of shutting down the Supreme Court appointment process in presidential election years. The tradition is the opposite, for the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominations, no matter the timing, and actually to confirm nominees when they are moderate and well qualified.

            The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It does not relieve our leaders of their powers and does not cease to have effect at certain times, even during presidential elections. President Abraham Lincoln made five Supreme Court nominations during the Civil War, Wilson made two during World War I, and Roosevelt made three during World War II. Hoover made three during the Great Depression.

            So much for that “longstanding” “precedent for inaction.”

            1. Hey, MM, the point I made was that the last time a vacancy occurred during a presidential year where the Senate was held by the opposite party was in the 1800s.

              With Kennedy, the vacancy occurred in ’87. Bork was nominated and Borked. Reagan then nominated the moderate Kennedy, who was confirmed. Special, and really is not an exception.

              The Biden rule is not really a rule but a reality. When the parties differ, a lame duck president needs to let the people decide who gets to appoint.

              1. When the parties differ, a lame duck president needs to let the people decide who gets to appoint.

                That is one bizzaro statement.

                Bottom line is that the president does not “need” any such thing Ned.

                Bottom line is ALSO that the Senate can do what the F it wants. It is entirely within their “right” to NOT approve of any choice that the president has a right to make.

                It just must be prepared for the proper backlash. And by proper, the Republicans are dumb as anything for playing the political patsy. Any type of “ultimatum” of not doing anything was pure amateur, politically speaking wise. It’s like not only NOT stepping around a pile of dog C R P as you approach it on a sidewalk, it is like diving face first into it.

                ALL of this is nothing more than the usual two party B$ politics.

                (btw, slipping in the “Biden Rule” was pretty funny)

                1. anon, there is law. There are politics.

                  Ultimately elections and the people control.

                  Because the Supreme Court has inserted itself into political questions (e.g., Dred Scott), membership on the court is critically important. That is why it is an election issue, an important basis for the people deciding the vote for one candidate versus another candidate.

                  The Biden rule calls for the Senate to categorically not confirm an appointment made in an election year for vacancy that occurs in an election year. That is a sound rule.

                2. That is why it is an election issue

                  Of course it is.

                  But we already had the election. Obama won, easily.

                  The Biden rule calls for the Senate to categorically not confirm an appointment made in an election year for vacancy that occurs in an election year.

                  Where in the world do you dig up this horsecr@p?

                  You know what, Ned? You’re a dishonest h@ck and that’s my starting point from now on. Congrats on making me agree with “anon.” Blech.

                3. in pieces – the filter is horrible…

                  Where in the world do you dig up this horse C R P?

                  That’s the funny thing Malcolm – from Joe B1den.

                  “go figure,” eh?

      2. Egad, you’re part of the legal profession and you say things like this: ” (no doubt even fewer would want to see another gun-loving, misogynist big0t “originalist” like Scalia)”? Is there a reason to attack and denigrate people like this?

        1. PB: Is there a reason to attack and denigrate people like this?

          Yes: so people don’t forget what an incredible t 00 l the guy was.

          In any event, if you’re concerned about “attacking and denigrating” people, you should pay more attention to the extreme insults that folks here and elsewhere have laid on the Supreme Court (9 people, all of them public figures, none anonymous). Probably you’ll end up castigating yourself if you dig a few months back in the archives.

          Have fun.

    2. Personally, I would want a jurist who believe that law is about clear rules, not about totality of circumstances and the balancing of factors. We need simple, clear rules from the court. Bilski (and earlier, Benson) are not shining examples of clarity.

      I also would like a jurist who would look to the intent of enactors at the time a statute was enacted or the constitutional provision was drafted. The best evidence is the words of the statute itself. We all know that advocates draft legislative history to advance their own agenda’s. I have been part of THAT process several times.

      I am concerned when the Court decides cases based on politics and not law. I do not really care who is in the majority here. I think doing so undermines the structure of our government. The Supreme Court becomes extremely politicized. When the people feel oppressed by the Supreme Court and there is no higher authority, the only appeal is left is to violence.

      I think of Dred Scott here. That decision caused the Civil War because it upset the political balance in Congress. It was a blunder by the Court that should have been avoided.

      1. I am concerned when the Court decides cases based on politics and not law.

        Not so much when any such Court happens to coincide with the “6 is a genius because he agrees with me” plank….

        When the people feel oppressed by the Supreme Court and there is no higher authority, the only appeal is left is to violence.

        Decidedly not true – Look on the Hricik side of the blog a bit back and note a piece commenting on the number of times the Supreme Court have been “reversed” or their rulings otherwise tossed. (it happens A LOT more than most people think).

        The mistake you are perpetuating is to place the Supreme Court ABOVE the law – they are NOT above the law – NO branch of the government is above the law (that’s one reason why we have checks and balances and one reason why constitutional violations of separations of power occur WHENEVER ANY one branch – including the judicial branch – steps out of line).

        Finally, Dred Scott did NOT cause the Civil War. Played a factor, perhaps, but most definitely cannot be said to have been the cause of it. And certainly NOT because of any purported “Congress unbalancing” – it was a heinous decision that exemplifies when the Court is simply TOO full of itself.

        And to directly contradict a post by Malcolm, and as I have previously noted, there is NOT ONE state attorney’s oath that places the call of duty of an attorney to the courts ABOVE the Constitution. In a very real sense, we have a duty to blast the courts – even and especially the Supreme Court – when they are out of line.

        1. Factor, cause? Is there a real difference?

          The Roman Empire fell. Why?

          Name the poison:

          Corruption.
          Christianity
          Divided Empire — army in the West, money to pay the army in the East.
          Taxation + Senators did not have to pay taxes leading to erosion of the tax base as more and more gave their land to Senators and became serfs
          Too much bureaucracy

          The same can be said of the Civil War. But adivided country, divided by Slavery, was central to the war; and it was a political balance that prevented it. Dred Scott destabilized a political balance.

          1. Your answer is bizarro historical dust kicking – come back to the NOW and try again – this time addressing what I actually stated.

            Thanks.

            (and your notion of “stabilized pre-Dred Scott” is WOEFULLY in error – there was NO “stable” in that time and the whole kit and kaboddle was heading there anyhow. The Dred Scott decision was an absolute travesty – and a clear warning to those that like to place the Supreme Court on some untouchable pedestal ABOVE the law, above the Constitution – they simply do not belong there.

  2. Speaking of surveys, did everyone see this one over at SCOTUSblog?

    link to scotusblog.com

    The question was whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 60% agreed, 12% said they weren’t sure, and 28% said they disagreed (most of the naysayers were either disappointed by his conservatism or felt that the Supreme Court doesn’t need another white guy). A grand total of 4% said he was “too liberal”.

    In classic SCOTUSblog fashion, the results were described in their headline as “split” (that’s true of pretty much every poll, the last time we checked).

    A more accurate headline, of course, would be “Poll shows strong support for Garland, with most SCOTUSblog respondents approving of him or a more liberal judge.” That kind of headline, of course, might evince some sort of “bias” in the minds of the weak-minded which would be the worst thing ever for the totally amd proudly “non-biased” SCOTUSblog. LOL

Comments are closed.