Skip Navigation

Guessing SCOTUS: Do Rulings Depend on What Roberts Has for Breakfast Each Day?

December 16, 2020

To foster said legal atmosphere – and it is critically important for the Court and the country we do so – the Court must defend Intellectual Property (IP) from its very many thieves

There is a subset of the Comment-ariat who make their living watching the courts – and specifically the Supreme Court.

And humans being human – this subset likes to hazard guesses as to how the Big Nine (for now, anyway) will rule.

Largely predicated upon the behavior of the Big Nine during hearings.  What questions were asked, how they were asked, etc.

My joke for many years was the evenly divided Court would rule to the Left or Right depending upon what Justice Anthony Kennedy – aka Flipper – had for breakfast that day.  This was also true – to a lesser extent – with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

These two breakfast-eers have retired from the Court.  Now, most unfortunately, allegedly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has taken up the Flipper Morning Meal mantle.

So now I wonder if Roberts’ breakfast decisions can mean big things at the Big Court.

Roberts has routinely disappointed those who in 2005 helped Republican President George W. Bush put him on the Court.

John Roberts: Inside His Surprising Streak of Liberal Wins

Roberts’ Constitutional Lawlessness:

“Roberts has become increasingly cast, and rightly so, as one who cares more about the public’s perception of the Court than what the U.S. Constitution requires.”

Roberts doesn’t actually care about the public’s opinion.  He cares about the DC Zeitgeist’s opinion.

And the DC Zeitgeist is decidedly Leftist and anti-President Donald Trump.  It is this horrible gaggle Roberts is routinely looking to appease.

Is John Roberts a Closeted Never-Trumper? Reading Between the Lines of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report

Most notoriously, Roberts saved the exceedingly unconstituional and awful Obamacare by asserting a “The mandate is a tax” argument its proponents barely made.

Most recently, Roberts joined with six other Justices in deciding not to take Texas’ case against several presidential-election-stealing states.  The Court’s ridiculous decision ridiculously means a state that cheats in a national election – which screws everyone in the nation – is the only entity that is allowed to do anything about it.  Which is asinine.  Which is saying the only person who can prosecute a murder – is the murderer.

But Roberts can do some good.  And has.  To wit: This just happened.

Supreme Court Launches Revised Rules on Intellectual Property Rights Cases:

“Approved by the court en banc last October and effective since November 16, the revised rules are ‘designed to foster a legal atmosphere that ultimately spurs creative activity and innovation, technology transfer, and foreign investment,’ the (Supreme Court) SC Public Information Office said.”

To foster said legal atmosphere – and it is critically important for the Court and the country we do so – the Court must defend Intellectual Property (IP) from its very many thieves.

Speaking of IP thieves, let us flashback to the Court’s October 7 hearing of IP case Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.

Google is the world’s largest IP thief – this side of Communist China:

“The (Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc.) dispute centers on the use of parts of the Java programming language’s application programming interfaces (APIs) (11,500 lines of Java code), which are owned by Oracle…, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has admitted to using the APIs….”

Wait – Google has admitted this?

The Email Where Google Admits They Stole the Intellectual Property to Build Android:

“‘The e-mail, from Google engineer Tim Lindholm to the head of Google’s Android division, Andy Rubin, recommends that Google negotiate for a license to Java rather than pick an alternative system….

“‘The second paragraph of the email reads (in part):

“‘“What we’ve actually been asked to do by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] (Google’s founders) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome.

“‘“We’ve been over a bunch of these and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.”’

“Except Google never did negotiate for Android ‘a license for Java under the terms we need.’

“But they released Android anyway.

“That’s not legal.”

Indeed it is not.  Oracle’s case against Google – is a LeBron James Communist China-funded slam dunk.

But…how’d the SCOTUS October 7 hearing go?  Can we glean an outcome therefrom?  Do we know what Roberts had for breakfast?

The Court Comment-ariat once again had no problem venturing guesses.

Justices Wary of Upending Tech Industry in Google v. Oracle Supreme Court Fight:

“At the end of an hour and a half of arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer, who at one point read aloud some code, seemed to be the only sure vote. The liberal justice appeared to lean toward Google.

“Several of the other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, suggested they were sympathetic to Oracle’s copyright claims.

“Still, they appeared reluctant to rule in Oracle’s favor because of arguments made by leading computer scientists and Microsoft, in friend-of-the-court briefs, that doing so could upend the industry.”

Yet again, Roberts (and some others) seem to be more worried about the DC Zeitgeist than they are about, say, the Constitution:

“The Copyright Clause (also known as the Intellectual Property Clause, Copyright and Patent Clause, or the Progress Clause) describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8).

“The clause states that:

“‘[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’

“The clause is the basis of intellectual property laws in the United States, specifically copyright and patent laws.”

If Roberts and his Court were to adhere to the Constitution – and their just revised, aforementioned Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases – they would have to rule for Oracle.

Oracle owns the Java copyrights.  Google used Oracle’s Java – without license or permission to do so.  The case is a LeBron James Commie slam dunk.

But Roberts may yet again be looking to appease DC and its Zeitgeist.  Cited IP-thieving members of which every year spend billions of lobby dollars looking to make easier their heists.

Roberts isn’t supposed to be susceptible to DC lobbyists.  He’s supposed to be faithful to the US Constitution.

Here’s hoping he adheres to the Constitution and his Court’s very own, brand new IP rules – rather than his predilection to suck up to the DC robber mob.

And would someone please get the man some bacon and eggs?

[Originally posted on RedState]

Author
Seton Motley is the president of Less Government, a DC-based non-profit organization dedicated to reducing the power of government and protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault.
smotley@lessgovernment.org @SetonMotley