While there are definitely certain points in the article the I find myself agreeing with, the overall piece is remarkably bad. The ideas of a generalist perspective and enforcing of "common sense" are most definitely good things, but pointing to their lack of knowledge on a subject as the reason behind their utilization of common sense seems silly.
>The justices' lack of technology savvy may have been an asset in resolving the Grokster case...
That single "may" is a fairly huge assumption to be making for this article, and one which is just kinda carried along.
>The court refused to set a numerical threshold for liability, perhaps recognizing that a line that makes sense for file-sharing networks might not work for the next technology that comes along.
See, this seems (to me at least) like that decision is coming from their expertise with regards to the Law rather than any real or perceived ignorance of technology.
>So maybe we should be happy that Justice Sotomayor has no clue how a Roku box works. It probably makes her a better justice.
I'm sorry, but anyone touting the idea that ignorance somehow leads to better decision making is delusional.
>The justices' lack of technology savvy may have been an asset in resolving the Grokster case...
That single "may" is a fairly huge assumption to be making for this article, and one which is just kinda carried along.
>The court refused to set a numerical threshold for liability, perhaps recognizing that a line that makes sense for file-sharing networks might not work for the next technology that comes along.
See, this seems (to me at least) like that decision is coming from their expertise with regards to the Law rather than any real or perceived ignorance of technology.
>So maybe we should be happy that Justice Sotomayor has no clue how a Roku box works. It probably makes her a better justice.
I'm sorry, but anyone touting the idea that ignorance somehow leads to better decision making is delusional.