🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8mph8k$4gf$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> hollaar@faith.cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>In article <1a358438.348a05c9@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com> andysch <aschlaflyNOasSPAM@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>Only a panel of 3 appellate judges in the D.C. jurisdiction are
>>deliberating over the case (Eldred v. Reno).  If you want to
>>withhold stating your opinion on this issue until you hear what
>>those 3 judges think, that's certainly your option.  Do you even
>>know who those judges are?
>
>Does it make any difference?  Clearly, none of them has made a
>previous decision about the constitutionality of copyright term
>extension.
>
>And I don't know the DC Circuit rules, but in some circuits (such
>as the Federal Circuit), you don't know the judges of the panel
>until you get there for oral arguments.  In others, you find out
>about a month before, but after you have filed your briefs.  And
>the case isn't scheduled to be heard until October 5th.

I checked further, and the DC Circuit discloses panels in civil cases
at the time it sets the case for oral argument, and posts a calendar
about two months in advance.

They've posted through October 3rd, but not October 5th yet.


>But if you know who they are, why don't you post it?  It's not
>that important, but it's interesting.


>>BTW, many persons outside of the judiciary -- and many voters --
>>can and do make decisions about constitutionality on their own.
>>Many take an oath of office requiring it.
>
>But the judiciary seems to get the final say, and certainly will in
>this case.

And if the DC Circuit affirms the district court's summary judgement
that the term extension was constitutional, you likely won't get to
far saying that you didn't infringe the copyright because you, as a
voter, decided it was unconstitutional.