RIAA Lawyer In Limewire Lawsuit Recommended As A Federal Judge
from the judicial-capture? dept
We've talked plenty about "regulatory capture," when people from industry shift back and forth into the federal government and help make the laws that impact the very industries they once took paychecks from (and likely will again in the future). But what about "judicial capture"? There was a lot of buzz recently about the former RIAA lobbyist who became a federal judge for the District Court in DC, and who is now ruling on copyright cases that could have an eventual impact on the RIAA. There may be some other similar situations coming up as well. Someone who prefers to remain anonymous pointed out that Senator Chuck Schumer recently recommended Katherine B. Forrest to serve as a judge in the SDNY district court. Among Forrest's recent cases? Representing the major record labels in their lawsuit against Limewire.Now, this is not to say that Forrest wouldn't make a good judge. She very well might. This also isn't meant to single out Forrest. It's just that this particular situation, combined with the Howell situation, at least raises some questions about whether or not judicial bias is an issue. It's just not a topic that's discussed all that often. I would imagine that if she did become a judge, she would recuse herself from any RIAA related cases that might come her way. However, at a time when judges are becoming increasingly important in keeping things like copyright lawsuits from getting completely out of hand, shouldn't there at least be some exploration of whether or not judges' previous work experience might bias them in a particular direction?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I gotta stop reading this stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I gotta stop reading this stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Reminds me of this:
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have evidence that judges are being appointed without any exploration into their previous work? "Shoudn't" suggest that. Perhaps you meant to write "is there exploration of whether or not judges' previous work experience might biast them in a particular direction."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's been for sale for a very long time (at least since early of last century.) Presidents who have justices die or retire from the Supreme Court replace them, and they usually choose justices in their best interest (and their best interest is usually the interest of those who put them in power to begin with.) District judges go through the same process as the Justices of the Supreme Court, where district judges are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.
Sure, Justices have to be vetted by the Senate, which of course work their best to try and approve justices that meet their best interests too. But in the end, they are all bought and paid for by someone. The good thing is that, for the most part, the system works because there are too many chiefs and not enough indians...the competing conflicts in interest keep the process neutral. But that doesn't mean that it is perfect (and it never will be so long as humans are involved in the process.) Because there is less of an impact with district judges, there is likely to be less scrutiny and thus more people get through...but since the RIAA/MPAA owns most of the Senate (and at least one person in the White House,) it isn't surprising that the normal conflict wasn't there to vet this individual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to see "Originalism of Constitutional Law", look no further.
I hate to say it, but there needs to be "updates" to the Constitution to remain relevant. Both of those judges seem not to want to rule ANYTHING unconstitutional.
Business patents? (Shirked duties)
Harper vs RIAA? (Didn't want to hear it)
Free Speech for the Rich? (That's what they want to hear)
I don't want to sound overly negative, but the high court system seems to come off rather conservatively. I just hope that I can be proven wrong with the advent of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, Senate hearings anyone?
Have you never watched C-SPAN? What do you think the Senate does when it holds a hearing for each judicial candidate and peppers him/her with questions? Do you think the Senators are probing the candidate about favorite colors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um, Senate hearings anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um, Senate hearings anyone?
The same thing happened with Sotomayer, who basically talked without saying anything. But once they are elected by majority vote, is there a review process they have to uphold? Is there something that says Supreme Justices have to be voted again into their position?
There could be ways to uphold justice in SCOTUS or even the federal review process. But it seems more and more, the process is upheld by regulatory capture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
It seems that you must either be suggesting that (1)IP attorneys are more prone than other types of attorneys to bias or that (2) attorneys should be disqualified from becoming judges. I don't think either of those propositions seems very defensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
If that tax attorney was taking huge sums of money from lets say the Federal reserve, and had a very strong bias to increase/decrease taxation, then yes, I would be against that person becoming a judge, for appearances only. He may be able to put aside his bias and be able to judge whats in front of him based on facts presented, but IMHO, highly unlikely.
(2) attorneys should be disqualified from becoming judges. - Absolutely no, but, they should be barred from hearing cases where there is an obvious conflict of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
If you're talking about the fact that IP attorneys, like all attorneys, (usually) get paid for their work by their clients, then I'm not sure how that makes them more or less biased than other attorneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
Oh well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
We do not want judge to come from or to go to law firms.
While it may be convenient to use lawyers as judges it in no way should be done.
Judges should come from outside.
No police, no lawyers, no politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
Nobody who knows anything about the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
It seems that you must either be suggesting that (1)IP attorneys are more prone than other types of attorneys to bias or that (2) attorneys should be disqualified from becoming judges. I don't think either of those propositions seems very defensible
I made no such suggestion. I'm not sure where you're reading that. I simply pointed out that there should be greater concern about *any* judge and the biases they bring to the bench with them, using this particular one as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are IP lawyers more biased? Or, should we ban all lawyers from becoming judges?
We could improve those things with more transparency, every appointed position in the government should come with full disclosure of the pass from the candidate to that position and the public should have access to it.
The public in turn should start tracking those positions, and compiling a history of the men and women that occupy those things.
Those positions are the weeds in the government that need to be pruned, to keep it honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
page 2?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a big surprise..
Since the RIAA/MPAA haven't gotten the decisions they want from the federal judges, the obvious thing to do is simply put their own lackeys into federal judgeships. This will certainly help them in the future.
And people think that our government is not corrupt? hahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. As if their lobbying laws into effect wasn't bad enough, now we'll have RIAA lawyers arguing RIAA law before RIAA judges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I'm sure that will happen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judicial Bias is one of the biggest topics of the day, I am all for "Judicial Bias" meted out by judges biased towards the intent of the founders of the Constitution of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]