Home | Subscribe | Post a Job | Advertise | Contact
« FCBA and Santa Clara Program on Advanced Complex Litigation |
| Biogen v. Glaxosmithkline: Prosecution History Disclaimer and Claim Construction »
Posted on Apr 28, 2013 at 01:41 PM | Permalink
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Apr 28, 2013 at 06:47 PM
It'd be fun to see a Wordle of the text in the comments here, since January 1.
Apr 29, 2013 at 10:47 AM
It'd be fun to see a Wordle of MM's text in the comments here, since well, whenever.
And let's be sure to capture the span of time last fall when 95%+ of Malcolm's comments contained derogatory posts.
Which of his favorite 'swagger' would be most prominent...?
Apr 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM
I've watched modern Republicans try to be funny. Frankly, it's just painful. Before anyone accuses me of not being amused because my politics paint my criticism, bullsh*t. I can watch two local area politicians (i.e. I don't know who is who) try to be funny, and I'd wager that 90% of the time I could instantly spot the Republican.
I'm not saying their aren't Republicans in our personal lives that aren't hilarious people (of course there are). But once they actually attain office something happens to make them the most painfully unfunny people alive. Genghis Khan had a better sense of humor. Probably even mocked himself once in a while.
Apr 29, 2013 at 02:18 PM
McCracken, I have no idea who or what you are talking about, but both Kennedy and Reagan cracked a lot of jokes and were pretty funny.
Now, you would say that Kennedy was a democrat. But, in truth, his politics were prototypical of today's Republicans, tax cuts and strong defense.
Further, you have consistently failed to comment on the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. When you say Republicans are against blacks, you are only demonstrating your own blindness.
If I were you, I would stop viewing the world from bigotry and prejudice.
Ned Heller |
Apr 29, 2013 at 04:43 PM
If you think Lincoln is representative of the post-Nixon, post-Southern-Strategy Republican Party, then your history teachers have failed you.
Apr 29, 2013 at 06:00 PM
Southern Strategy? You fail to mention that until just recently, the Democrat Party was the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow, and remains the party that paints the likes of Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell in the most offensive way, using blatantly racist caricatures, and calling them House N's and the like. The point is to keep blacks on the "reservation" so to speak, bullying them to stay faithful to the Democrat party OR ELSE. Trying to convince people that the Republican Party of today is the Democrat Party of yesterday is part of this strategy.
Note that after Nixon, the South again voted solidly for Carter. http://electoralmap.net/PastElections/past_elections.php?year=1976
It was Reagan's conservatism, particularly his anti-communism and social conservatism, that attracted the South away from being solidly Democrat. But see more on this, below.
But what then happened to all those Republicans in the North who for so long opposed Democrat Party racism? Did they all decamp and head to the neo-Marxist party that today calls itself the Democrat Party. Hardly.
Northern Republicans remained the Republicans of the party of Lincoln, and do not forget that. They tend to be what is known as "liberal" Republicans because they tend to be liberal on social issues while maintaining their ideals on freedom. Regarding civil rights: it was Earl Warren, a Republican, who gave us Brown v. Board of Education. Eisenhower sent the troops South. The Republic Party with Northern Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act.
You cannot possibly say that all those Northern Republicans have ceased to be Republicans and that all Southerners who used to be KKK-racists have ceased to be Democrats. What is true is the Democrat Party of today does not have a Southern Strategy because it openly ridicules social conservatism.
And, it is also true that the Republican Party does not have a national strategy so long as it emphasizes social conservatism. Social conservationism is killing the party, IMHO.
Ned Heller |
Apr 29, 2013 at 06:43 PM
Did you know that Learned Hand being a Republican cost him his shot at being a Supreme Court Justice?
Those posting in politics here are ultra-petty. Everyone knows that there is very little real difference between republlicans today and democrats. They are all politicians.
Can we get back to patent law now?
Apr 29, 2013 at 06:54 PM
L. Hand was denied a chance at the SC because of his politics? I didn't know that. When was this?
I also agree that we need to keep politics out of this forum unless it affects patent law. Patent law has not been a political issue. For one, I think the O-Man has been making good appointments to the Federal Circuit.
Ned Heller |
Apr 30, 2013 at 02:09 PM
But at least with 101 the justices seem to split along party lines. Justice Stevens seems to exemplify the liberal justice and patent law.
So, I am afraid that patents and politics are mixed together, which is no surprise given that patents assume a model of people behavior and economics.
Just compare opinions by Soot-in-my-ear with Chief Justice Roberts.
Apr 30, 2013 at 08:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Jason Rantanen, Associate ProfessorUniversity of IowaCollege of LawSSRN Articles
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics