It's still really not at all clear to me what their "format" is or how it's in any way unique. Even in their call to attack Ellen, they acknowledged that she may not have "known" that she was copying them but that she needed to be "educated."
I understand the idea that you can have a trademark on certain elements of a show, so while anyone can do a "talent show," having the judges turn their chairs when they like you or stand up and hit a gong if they don't might be elements that can be trademarked. But showing kids something and asking them questions? That is so obvious that Art Linkletter was doing it on the radio in 1945.
Well, no, four of those that signed the letter (Bennet, Portman, Rubio and Wyden) had voted yes for fast track. Their leader, Menendez, didn't even vote on the deal at all! They signed away their integrity with a blank check and they're not getting it back now.
The rest were opposed to the deal from the beginning, so attacking it now isn't about principles, it's just about reminding their base how they voted.
How is using Facebook to communicate any different than using a cell phone (also forbidden). If the story was about prisoners getting solitary for using a cell, I don't think there'd be any outrage. OTOH, why don't they just block Facebook?
To be fair to the judge, the Supreme Court's opinion was so twisted that it's clear to everyone that the Court was tailoring it's decision to wipe Aero out. It doesn't really matter what they do, the Supremes will find a new twist. It's not based on logic or the law, they've already decided...
Think of how much business they lost because they didn't get a positive review. Sure, the negative review may have kept some customers away, but a positive review would have actually brought in additional customers. I don't understand why these missing customers weren't included in the calculation of lost (potential) revenue.
If anyone can claim that a negative review cost them money, then clearly a lack of positive reviews is also costing money.
I can't understand why they decided to skip the warrant. They thought about it and they had the time. It doesn't seem likely that a warrant would be denied. And if a warrant WAS denied, then the same court that denied the warrant would have likely been more inclined to have required one. On the other hand, if they DID get a warrant, much of this delay would have been gone and there would be less risk of the defendant getting off. What's the down side with getting a warrant? Why, when they have an abundance of probable cause, do police still try to skip this step?
Any time someone declares that "you won't find a bigger defender," you can be sure that they are anything but.
The First Amendment was not created to protect the freedom to say what everyone else already agrees with, it was created to protect the unpopular opinions. In this country, there is no such thing as an "illegal political comment."
The NSA has the ability to literally monitor every phone call, email and all internet activity of anyone. Abuses are self-reported.
What are the chances that the NSA is NOT monitoring the heads of the committees that fund them? And what are the chances that a career politician (44 years for Feinstein; 19 for Rogers) never made a single transgressions that they would rather keep private?