Patent Reform legislation is being championed in Congress by liberal Pat Leahy (D-VT) in the Senate and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) in the House. Its disturbing that Smith seems to have gone native – going so far as to write editorials with Leahy – the man who savaged Clarence Thomas and dozens of conservative judicial nominees before his committee.

There is nothing conservative about Patent Reform and Leahy knows it. Too bad Smith doesn’t. In fact, Smith is pushing the House to vote on Leahy’s bill this week.

The legislation is a direct affront to American constitutional values and precedents, violates the Constitution and contains massive giveaways to big banks and the other Wall Street finance companies – each of them TARP recipients.

The House Leadership – flush with corporate cash – appears willing to turn their back on Tea Party principles in order to reward their K-Street benefactors.  The legislation has some stalwart conservative opponents but some Republican Study Committee members appear to be sitting on their hands – or worse.

HR 1239 Turns American Patent Law into European Patent Law

(more…)

Big banks have been under fire for using improper documents to foreclose on homes. Well, Congress stepped in to help, quietly passing a bill that could shield the banks from liability. From Reuters:

The law, the “Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act,” requires all federal and state courts to recognize notarizations made in other states.

The law specifically includes “electronic” notarizations stamped en masse by computers. Currently, only about a dozen states allow electronic notarizations, according to the National Notary Association.

“CONSTITUENTS” PRESSED FOR PASSAGE

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill’s existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill’s approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn’t acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.

(more…)

On September 20^th, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation — S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act — that seeks to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down websites anywhere in the world that are found to infringe on intellectual property rights.  This would be accomplished by ordering U.S. domain registrars and registries to stop resolving infringing sites’ domain names.  While this bill has the noble-sounding goal of preventing online piracy, handing the federal government authority over the Internet would set a troubling precedent that would imperil Internet freedom in America and across the world.

One disquieting issue is the lack of any requirement that these sites be found to violate the laws of the countries from where they operate.  In fact, under this bill sites operating perfectly legally under the laws of their own nations could be shut down by the U.S. Justice Department.

The concept that domain names of Internet sites operating legally in their home nations could be shut down by other nations for violation of their laws is one that should concern everyone.  For example, a few years ago a French court ordered Yahoo.com to block French citizens from accessing portions of the site deemed to contain content unlawful under French law. Yahoo.com resisted this demand, citing free speech issues. What if French courts had the capability to shut down the domain www.yahoo.com to force compliance with that decision?  What if every nation had the right to shut down Internet domains to force the entire Internet to comply with their local laws?  If the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act passes, a very dangerous precedent will be set.

Additionally, there is a threat that this power will be expanded well beyond piracy.  In fact, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) is already in court seeking seizure of the domain names of 141 Internet poker and gaming websites — none based in the Commonwealth of Kentucky — with claims that these sites compete with the state lottery and with the horse racing industry.

(more…)

From Reuters:

Republicans have questioned whether Kagan, a former Harvard law school dean who has served in the past two Democratic administrations, is driven more by politics than law.

Democratic backers call the 50-year-old nominee, who last week received the American Bar Association’s top rating, a perfect fit for the highest U.S. court.

Obama has faced a Republican wall of opposition this election year on issues like healthcare, climate change and immigration.

But barring unforeseen bombshells at the hearing, at least a few members of the opposition party are expected to join Democrats and confirm Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s leading liberal.

(more…)

On paper the Citizens United case has all the makings of a solid liberal issue.  First Amendment protections, considered sacrosanct by the left when a reporter is leaking classified information, are strengthened for those speaking truth to power.  Both the ACLU and AFL-CIO support the decision.  So why are prominent liberals speaking out so vehemently against it?

It would be easy to chalk up liberal outrage to a general hatred for all things corporate.  But is that enough to overcome what otherwise seems like a tailor-made liberal issue? After all, the ACLU said “[the prohibition on corporate speech] is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech.” Moreover, the corporate gains, which liberals might feel benefit the right, are offset by those of the unions and other liberal issue groups that benefit from the ruling just the same.  The net political impact is thus neutral, suggesting that their opposition isn’t political in nature.  Neither is it based on the merits. Rather, it is philosophical.

(more…)