Justices debate whether Warhol image is “fair use” of photograph of Prince
scotusblog.com
scotusblog.com
MS. BLATT:(...)Your test lies madness in the way of almost every photograph to a silkscreen or lithograph or any editing. I guarantee the air-brushed pictures of me look better than the real pictures of me, and they have a very different meaning and message to me. (Laughter.)
JUSTICE ALITO: What's your --
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, I think that's not right. I mean, I think you would look at --
(Laughter.)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- I think you would look at both of them, and one would say those are pictures of the same woman.
As an aside, I had never heard counsel talk to the justices with the confidence Blatt did. She had no problem interrupting them or flatly disagreeing. Looking at her bio, it makes more sense. She has argued 43 cases before the United States Supreme Court, prevailing in 37.[1]
I got hooked to them when I listened to a batch and one case was something I know a lot about. I was yelling at both sides for their choice of arguments and the way they were presented. It definitely gave me a healthy respect/fear of Gell-Mann Amnesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
What I find is that when it comes to the oral arguments, both sides usually have good points that they make, and the cases are usually decided on ideas much grater than the matter at hand. It also becomes clear that almost every case could be resolved with congressional clarification of the laws that they have passed.
The Gell-mann Amnesia is very real. Most SCOTUS reporting is grossly misleading if not factually wrong.
What do you think of the newer justices in oral? Their questions are obviously a different matter than their writing and decisions.
I have been impressed by Gorsuch. Kavanaugh seems to simply grandstand or throw softballs to whatever side he prefers. I haven't heard enough from Barret or Jackson to really form an opinion, although the latter seems prone to grandstanding as well.