I don't think the Supreme Court wants to reiterate its judgement in even clearer terms. They said even in Benson that they felt Congress should clarify the whole business.
I laid out clearly why I think what I think about Benson, Flook and Diehr in http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2011-07-28 and I have yet to see a similar outlay of the arguments for an opposing view.
If I've neglected a question about standards of review, I apologize. Please repeat it.
We discussed this in September, but I just now see you left me another reply(though I don't think it alters the argument that much): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031449
I'm on my phone at the moment and don't really have the time to write a long article in any case; but in a nutshell I think you are making too many assumptions about the meaning of the SCs words without considering their meaning as legal terms of art.
Comments
I don't think the Supreme Court wants to reiterate its judgement in even clearer terms. They said even in Benson that they felt Congress should clarify the whole business.
I laid out clearly why I think what I think about Benson, Flook and Diehr in http://ourdoings.com/ourdoings-startup/2011-07-28 and I have yet to see a similar outlay of the arguments for an opposing view.
If I've neglected a question about standards of review, I apologize. Please repeat it.
We discussed this in September, but I just now see you left me another reply(though I don't think it alters the argument that much): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3031449
I'm on my phone at the moment and don't really have the time to write a long article in any case; but in a nutshell I think you are making too many assumptions about the meaning of the SCs words without considering their meaning as legal terms of art.