tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post682043466380784983..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Six degrees of Judge Nancy GertnerBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-12675044694581522832009-03-02T10:55:00.000-08:002009-03-02T10:55:00.000-08:00I should add that the focus in Section 455(a) real...I should add that the focus in Section 455(a) really is on *appearances*. So, while the technical distinctions between the national and state ACLU branches may be relevant under 455(b) in determining whether Reinstein has an "interest" in this case, the analysis under 455(a) is much less technical; it's about how things appear to the average person. I suspect the average person (rightly or wrongly) does not draw fine distinctions between "The ACLU" and "The ACLU of Massachusetts."Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-920212479918122732009-03-02T10:32:00.000-08:002009-03-02T10:32:00.000-08:00Fred --You make legitimate points. But it does see...Fred --<BR/><BR/>You make legitimate points. But it does seem to me that the most relevant query here is about the ACLU's (both national and Mass. branches') work on the particular issues in *this* case, on which it has taken very strong positions. Reinstein was at the Mass. ACLU when it joined the motion to quash the subpoena to BC -- and the brief took a pretty benign view of p2p networks (Shakespeare! Plato! The Bible!) that is obviously at odds with the Plaintiffs' position in the Tenenbaum case. Reinstein's name isn't on that particular brief, but I think it's safe to assume that, as Legal Director, he would have at least approved the filing.<BR/><BR/>I realize that inquiring about the views and work of judges' spouses raises all sorts of difficult and sensitive issues. But Section 455(b) clearly says that spouses' work and finances are relevant in certain circumstances. Figuring out when they actually require recusal under both (b) the fuzzier 455(a) isn't easy, and, as I said, without fully researching the law (and learning some more about the facts) I'm not (yet) willing to say that Judge Gertner is disqualified here.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-90598555063249408502009-03-02T10:06:00.000-08:002009-03-02T10:06:00.000-08:00First, kudos for the thorough research, Ben! Secon...First, kudos for the thorough research, Ben! <BR/><BR/>Second, I think you're misleading your readers with the Gertner-Reinstein connection. The various ACLU chapters around the country act independently, making their own decisions regarding whether to participate in cases. Accordingly, claiming that ACLU-Mass. is associated with cases joined by ACLU-National or ACLU-No. Cal. is a stretch, at best. Sort of like tarring 20th Century Fox with a legal position taken by The Wall Street Journal (both are News Corp. companies). I don't believe EFF has worked with ACLU-Mass. on any file-sharing cases. <BR/><BR/>Third, I think you're telling an incomplete story, even when it comes to the ACLU. Because if you include all the ACLU chapters in your analysis (as you appear to do), then I think the ACLU has weighed in on the side of media companies (including record labels) far more often that it has against them. I'm reminded of the ACLU's opposition to Tipper Gore's campaign against explicit lyrics, for example.fvlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01275601017570202502noreply@blogger.com