The Supreme Court agreed with Monsanto on Monday that an Indiana farmer’s unorthodox planting of the company’s genetically modified soybeans violated the agricultural giant’s patent.
The court unanimously rejected farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that he was not violating Monsanto’s patent because the company’s pesticide-resistent “Roundup Ready” soybeans replicate themselves. Justice Elena Kagan said there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law.
“We think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit,” Kagan wrote. “Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops.”
We won’t pretend to be well-versed enough in this case and/or patent law (or any legal field for that matter) to have a strong opinion on the outcome of this case, though we suspect there will be more than a few readers who do. Anybody think the Supreme Court got this one wrong?
Looking back, O’Connor said, she isn’t sure the high court should have taken the case.
“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”
The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.”
“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”
O’Connor’s vote was the deciding vote in the case, leading to Bush’s election. (via The Daily Beast)
Justice Breyer, the 74-year-old Clinton appointee, also suffered a broken collarbone after a bicycling accident in 2011, and in 1993 (prior to his appointment) fractured ribs and punctured a lung in yet another. The moral of the story? You’re not gonna get him off that bicycle, apparently. He reportedly underwent shoulder surgery this morning, and is resting comfortably, pending release.
TIME’s new issue, featuring the story, ‘How Gay Marriage Won,’ hits newsstands Friday. Two couples who were photographed to illustrate the story appear on two separate covers this week.
Read the story here.
(Cover photographs by Peter Hapak)
How the times have changed, no?
Total minutes devoted to yesterday’s Prop 8 coverage on cable news.
Simple, effective, shareable.
If you look at it just from a legal standpoint there is nothing to argue. You can argue from a moral standpoint. You can say, ‘morally, I don’t like the idea of gay marriage’ because your church teaches you a certain thing. That’s fine. And we’re not asking anybody, or forcing churches to perform ceremonies. We’re not asking anybody to go outside of their religious beliefs. But marriage is not a religious right. It is a civil right. That is provided by the government. A church does not have a right to marry someone—except that it is given the right by the government. The government issues marriage licenses. The government decides who gets married and who doesn’t.Rob Reiner on the legality of gay marriage (via C-SPAN)
(Source: brooklynmutt)
LOVE THESE SCOTUS SIGNS! More here.
Morning reading on gay marriage and the Supreme Court: Politico’s contrarian what-if, “Can gay marriage survive SCOTUS loss?“
[A] majority of the Court seems committed to invalidating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and requiring Congress to revisit the formula for requiring preclearance of voting changes…It is unlikely that the Court will write an opinion forbidding a preclearance regime. But it may be difficult politically for Congress to enact a new measure.SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein earlier this morning. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires certain states with a history of voter disenfranchisement to obtain approval from the federal government before making any changes to their voting laws. One possible outcome: The court strikes down the criteria used in Section 5, but doesn’t strike down the requirement for preclearance itself. If that happens, a new criteria for preclearance would have to be constructed and enacted. And who would be responsible for that? John Boehner and Harry Reid, of course. Sigh. More on today’s arguments here. source
Obama Weighs Stepping In On Gay Marriage Case
Facing heightened expectations from gay rights supporters, the Obama administration is considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage - a move that could have a far-reaching impact on same-sex couples across the country.
The administration has one week to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the justices outlining its opinion on the California ban, known as Proposition 8. While an administration brief alone is unlikely to sway the high court, the government’s opinion does carry weight with the justices.
Opponents of the Proposition 8 ban believe the president signaled his intention to file a brief when he declared in last month’s inaugural address that gays and lesbians must be “treated like anyone else under the law.” An administration official said Obama - a former constitutional law professor - was not foreshadowing any legal action in his remarks and was simply restating his personal belief in the right of gays and lesbians to marry, though the official said the administration was considering filing a brief.
The Proposition 8 ballot initiative was approved by California voters in 2008 in response to a state Supreme Court decision that had allowed gay marriage. Twenty-nine other states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, while nine states and Washington, D.C., recognize same-sex marriage.
Photo Credit: (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)
If he were to step in on this, would it help or harm the case in front of the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a case challenging the per-biennial cycle limit on campaign contributions from individuals.
The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, argues that the limit on what individuals are allowed to give candidates ($46,200 per two-year cycle) and parties and PACs ($70,800 per two-year cycle) is an unconstitutional violation of the individual donor’s free speech rights.
While the last election certainly disproved the narrative, that changes in our campaign finance regulations would allow a certain political party to buy elections from here on out, we can all certainly expect to hear a great deal from those on both sides of this idea in the days ahead. Thoughts?
I’m moving back to New York in a few days. Unlike past...
OMG. I got so...
In this week’s Newsweek, a little...
Tumblr this morning. [h/t anne]
#@#$%!.tumblr.com
Here’s a hidden feature that shipped in...
Watch: PCB gets a visual shout out on GMA’s Yahoo/Tumblr...
Now as then, the Judicial Branch continues to consume a miniscule portion of the federal budget. In fiscal year 2012, the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court, other federal courts, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Federal Judicial Center, received a total 4 appropriation of $6.97 billion. That represented a mere two-tenths of one percent of the United States’ total budget of $3.7 trillion. Yes, for each citizen’s tax dollar, only two-tenths of one penny go toward funding the entire third branch of government! Those fractions of a penny are what the courts need to keep court facilities open, pay judges and staff, manage the criminal justice system (including pre-trial, defender, and probation services), process civil disputes ranging from complex patent cases to individual discrimination suits, and maintain a national bankruptcy court system. Those fractions of a penny are what Americans pay for a Judiciary that is second to none.Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts • Pitching the federal judiciary as an example of fiscal efficiency in the midst of the current fiscal crisis in his year-end report. “No one seriously doubts that the country’s fiscal ledger has gone awry. The public properly looks to its elected officials to craft a solution. We in the Judiciary stand outside the political arena, but we can continue to do our part to address the financial challenges within our sphere,” he also said in his statement. (ht Scotusblog)
BREAKING: US Supreme Court will hear gay marriage cases
The US Supreme Court has agreed to take up two gay marriage cases in their first serious look at the issue.
The court today granted review of the Defense of Marriage act, a federal law which says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman, and Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California, NBC News reports.
More updates on BreakingNews.com.
Photo: Gay marriage advocates cheer during a rally outside a federal courthouse in San Francisco moments before hearing that judges had struck down Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, on Feb. 7, 2012. (Beck Diefenbach / Reuters file)
“Now that the Supreme Court is wading into the battle, the justices could decide the more basic issue of whether any state can ban same-sex marriage under the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the law.” This could be big, guys.
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
