But that California wasn't relying heavily on the interactive nature of video games -- what some have called their "immersive" nature -- to distinguish them from comics, books, movies, etc., for the Court's benefit is a real head-scratcher. That's the obvious -- if not necessarily valid -- argument.burntheartist said:
But a "win" may not necessarily close the door for all time on the issue if the Court is narrowly divided and the dissenter's opinion(s) sprinkle any sort of breadcrumb trail for legislators to follow in the future. Short of a unanimous decision of the "why have you wasted everyone's time and money with this ridiculous legislative attempt" sort, I'd be surprised if there isn't some legislature trying the same nonsense all over again by summer of next year.Norix596 said:
That your count doesn't include Justice Breyer is pretty accurate. I fear that he's not a keen supporter of the EMA's side of the dispute. And with Ol' Clarence you can never tell either way because his ass is usually dozing off up on the bench during arguments. He's famous for waiting until another Justice makes up their mind (often his buddy Scalia) and just co-signing their opinion.2fish said:Well since postal 2 was the love child of this debate I shall say we found a new loophole, Postal 3: Vulcan Revenge you only kill Klingons no human violence so it is clean under Cali's proposed law.
I made a quick score card for comments I liked or thought was in our favor.
Justice Alito 3
Justice Kagan 5
Justice Kennedy 1
Justice Scalia 6
Justice Sotomayor 4
I feel good about this case, let?s hope we win and win hard.
This is why this case is important. It's unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear such a case again when they established this as precedent.JDKJ said:
Unfortunately, legislators aren't usually the picture-perfect definition of God's smartest creatures. Just because they've been told repeatedly that "X" is a dumb idea doesn't mean that they won't turn around and get to trying "X" all over again. There were already more federal court opinions striking down attempts to restrict video games than you can count on one hand when California attempted to pass yet another law doing exactly the same thing.Atmos Duality said:
Of this I am quite aware. However, the wonderful thing about Supreme Court rulings is that they are the most powerful form of 'Stare Decisis'.JDKJ said:
True, but if you're the one footing the bill for the tryings, as the taxpayers of California are in the instant case, that may be of scant comfort. I'd imagine that as we speak, Mr. Smith and Jenner & Block are preparing their million dollar-plus fee bill for presentation to the State of California -- who's broke ass can hardly afford payment thereof.Atmos Duality said:
I agree that when you let these idiots throw their eggs, don't be surprised if there's a mess to clean up.JDKJ said:
It apparently doesn't take too far a climb up the court system to quickly rack up those outrageous legal fees. For example, the 7th Circuit's Court of Appeals shot down Illinois' video game law at a cost to the State of half a million dollars in legal fees to opposing counsel's law firm. I'd imagine that even if the State had the good sense -- which, of course, it didn't -- to call it a day at the level of the District Court, they'd have still been in the hole for close to a quarter million dollars or more in fees.Atmos Duality said:
Up until Mr. Smith starting blathering on about this and that, I thought the discussion was somewhat fair and intelligent. After Mr. Smith starting yapping about God only knows what, the whole thing became a quite amusing. The different Justices couldn't make heads or tails of what the guy was saying, and neither could I.JDKJ said:
