Justice Kennedy's famous eloquence comes out in a patent case:
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8.
Meanwhile, the Supremes (in a "here, you can see that's I'm right" moment) have gone to the YouTube age. Some might recall a case that was discussed during the Alito hearings involved shooting a fleeing suspect. They just handed down an opinion about a high speed chase, the question of how to "evaluate the reasonableness of the decision to ram respondent's speeding vehicle in a manner that created an obvious risk of death and has in fact made him a quadriplegic at the age of 19."
[A sort of dark side of the Duke boys and Roscoe P. Coltrane?]
The lower courts felt that a jury ("the people") should determine if the "seizure" here was "unreasonable" per the Fourth Amendment. A 8-1 ruling (two justices* briefly tried to temper Scalia's majority opinion's breadth) held otherwise. It was just obvious that the police acted adequately here, and should not be liable. And, via a link provided in Footnote 5, it allows us to view the videotape that lead them to so hold.
Various opinions have provided pictures but this is the first time we get to watch a videotape (THEY watched videotapes that influenced their decisions for awhile). Nifty. It also is good that the chase was videotaped. A videotape doesn't answer all questions, but those who think it should be available in the interrogation context will tell you, it can surely help. A jury very likely should have had a chance to decide too,** but we have ourselves a first here all the same.
Supreme Court YouTube. A few other rulings, including a Commerce Clause matter in which Alito (with Stevens/Kennedy) and Scalia split.
---
* The two being John Edwards' favorites (per the first debate), Breyer and Ginsburg. Bill Richardson interestingly first said Justice White (if only we could learn why) and then Ginsburg (they wanted a living one and she wrote that nice abortion ruling dissent that made her star for the day so to speak). Dodd would have went with Brennan, but then took her too ... why note Stevens? Me, I'd take Stevens or Souter, probably.
** Justice Stevens, again showing the importance of having at least one strong liberal on the Court, noted:
Whether a person's actions have risen to a level warranting deadly force is a question of fact best reserved for a jury. Here, the Court has usurped the jury's factfinding function and, in doing so, implicitly labeled the four other judges to review the case unreasonable. It chastises the Court of Appeals for failing to "vie[w] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape" and implies that no reasonable person could view the videotape and come to the conclusion that deadly force was unjustified. However, the three judges on the Court of Appeals panel apparently did view the videotapes entered into evidence and described a very different version of events
Prof. Akhil Amar, see e.g. his book on the Bill of Rights, probably would agree. Let "the people" decide ala juries. At least, when there clearly is some disagreement.