Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam
Maybe, this case will settle the matter?
I never thought a peremptory challenge would succeed frankly but had always thought that it would take a criminal case to strike §§ 2257, 2257A down as unconstitutional. |
A nice thought, but not hardly. It only means that they have to fight the privacy issues and their bid to fight those one at a time in criminal cases got rejected.
They stopped those inspections for tactical reasons, and that becomes more clear after you read their pleadings and see what they tried to pull here. Now that they lost, only two reasons exist to restrain them from inspections: a. They still want to avoid creating embarassing facts. If they do no inspections, there will be no atrocities that will shock a judge to deal with and explain, and b. The risk that their agents just might get sued for violation of the rights of producers when, on the basis of that 6th Circuit opinion - later reversed - that the whole thing was an invasion of privacy.
The most critical development in this whole case - IMHO - is when the 3rd Circuit resurrected the ideas of that first panel in the 6th Circuit - that no matter what DOJ said in its public Comments back in 2008 when they promulgated this, that IT DOES apply to private, noncommercial people and their intimate home videos - and makes it a federal crime to refuse to show a husband-wife cell phone oral pleasure video to an agent. That's outrageous, but those Ohio judges and now the Philadelphia judges are looking at it that way, and if ultimately the Supreme Court sees it that way, there is no way in hell that this statute will be held to be constitutional. My humble opinion. Truly humble.
__________________
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue.
Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964