|US Announces That It Reserves the Right to
Respond to Cyber Attacks Militarily
Lynn, Deputy Secretary of Defense, gave a
speech at the
National Defense University in Washington DC, in which he
stated that the U.S. "reserves the right, under the laws of armed conflict, to respond
to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time
and place of our choosing".
He said that "bits and bytes can be as threatening as bullets and bombs".
However, he also said that U.S. policy is to strengthen cyber security to deny potential
attackers "the benefit of an attack". He said that "our first goal is
to prevent war".
The Department of Defense (DOD) also released a
paper [19 pages in PDF] on July 14, 2011, titled "Department of Defense Strategy
for Operating In Cyberspace". It does not address what attacks would warrant a military
response, how the DOD would attribute the source of the
attack, or how the U.S. might deliver a military response. Rather, it is a five
part plan for building up cyber security. See, related story in this issue
titled "Department of Defense Releases Strategy for Operating In Cyberspace".
Lynn (at right) began by stating that "In 2008, a
foreign intelligence agency penetrated our classified computer systems". He did
not state which one.
Lynn said that the "the centrality of information technology to our military
operations and our society virtually guarantees that future adversaries will target our
dependence on it. Our assessment is that cyber attacks will be a significant component
of any future conflict, whether it involves major nations, rogue states, or terrorist
"Although in the future we are likely to see destructive or disruptive cyber
attacks that could have an impact analogous to physical hostilities, the vast majority of
malicious cyber activity today does not cross this threshold." He continued that
"the most prevalent cyber threat to date has been exploitation -- the theft of information
and intellectual property from government and commercial networks".
cyber capabilities reside almost exclusively in nation-states". However, he said
that in the future non-state actors may pose a cyber threat.
"Terrorist groups and rogue states must be considered separately. They have few or
no assets to hold at risk and a greater willingness to provoke. They are thus harder to deter.
If a terrorist group gains disruptive or destructive cyber tools, we have to assume they will
strike with little hesitation. And it is clear that terrorist groups, as well as rogue states,
are intent on acquiring, refining, and expanding their cyber capabilities."
"Commentators have asked whether and how the U.S. would respond militarily to attacks
on our networks." He stated in response that "Just as our military organizes to
defend against hostile acts from land, air, and sea, we must also be prepared to respond to
hostile acts in cyberspace. Accordingly, the United States reserves the right, under the
laws of armed conflict, to respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified
military response at the time and place of our choosing."
But, he also said that the U.S. will seek to deny potential attackers "the benefit
of an attack rather than relying exclusively on the threat of retaliation".
He also said that the nature of the internet "can
also make intrusions difficult to attribute", so "we cannot rely on the threat
of retaliation alone to deter potential attackers".
|Department of Defense Releases Strategy for
Operating In Cyberspace
7/14. The Department of Defense (DOD) released a
paper [19 pages in PDF] titled "Department of Defense Strategy for Operating
Despite the broad title of this paper, its content is limited. It does not address
what kinds of cyber attacks would warrant a military response by the U.S. It does not address
how the DOD would attribute the source of a cyber attack. It does not address how the U.S.
might deliver a military retaliation for a cyber attack.
Rather, this paper is merely a five part plan for building up cyber security.
It argues that a degree of deterrence can be achieved by making cyber space less
vulnerable to cyber attacks.
First, this paper describes the problem. "The Department and the nation have
vulnerabilities in cyberspace. Our reliance on cyberspace stands in stark contrast to the
inadequacy of our cybersecurity -- the security of the technologies that we use
each day. Moreover, the continuing growth of networked systems, devices, and
platforms means that cyberspace is embedded into an increasing number of
capabilities upon which DoD relies to complete its mission."
It continues that "many foreign
nations are working to exploit DoD unclassified and classified networks, and
some foreign intelligence organizations have already acquired the capacity to
disrupt elements of DoD's information infrastructure. Moreover, non-state actors
increasingly threaten to penetrate and disrupt DoD networks and systems."
"Foreign cyberspace operations against U.S. public and private sector systems are
increasing in number and sophistication. DoD networks are probed millions of times every
day, and successful penetrations have led to the loss of thousands of files from U.S.
networks and those of U.S. allies and industry partners."
It states that the "DoD is particularly concerned with three areas of potential
adversarial activity: theft or exploitation of data; disruption or denial of
access or service that affects the availability of networks, information, or
network-enabled resources; and destructive action including corruption,
manipulation, or direct activity that threatens to destroy or degrade networks
or connected systems."
This is an outline of the DOD cyber strategy announced in this paper:
- Treat cyberspace as an operational domain to organize, train, and equip so
that DoD can take full advantage of cyberspace’s potential.
- Employ new defense operating concepts to protect DoD networks and systems.
- Partner with other U.S. government departments and agencies and the
private sector to enable a whole-of-government cybersecurity strategy.
- Build robust relationships with U.S. allies and international partners to
strengthen collective cybersecurity.
- Leverage the nation's ingenuity through an exceptional cyber workforce and
rapid technological innovation.
|CCIA Releases Report on Importance of
Fair Use to U.S. Economy
7/11. The Computer and Communications Industry
Association (CCIA) released the 2011 edition of a
[PDF] titled "Fair Use in the U.S. Economy: Economic Contribution of Industries Relying
on Fair Use". See also, CCIA
It states that the fair use industries make up a large and growing part of the
U.S. economy, and that policymakers should consider the importance of the fair
use industries when addressing copyright policy proposals.
The report states that the fair use industries include internet search and web hosting
providers, software developers, and manufacturers of consumer electronic devices that
enable copying of copyrighted works.
This report states that "in 2008 and 2009, fair use industries generated total revenue
averaging $4.6 trillion, a 35 percent increase over 2002 revenue of $3.4 trillion."
Moreover, "Fair use-related industry value added in 2008 and 2009 averaged $2.4 trillion,
approximately 17 percent of total U.S. current dollar GDP."
The report also states that "Employment in industries benefiting from fair
use and related limitations and exceptions increased from 16.9 million in 2002
to 17.7 million in 2008."
Also, "From 2002 to 2007, the productivity of U.S. fair use industries
increased by 38 percent to nearly $137,000 per employee."
The report also states that "Exports of goods and services related to fair
use industries increased by 64 percent from $179 billion in 2002 to $294 billion
in 2008, and then fell back to $266 billion in 2009."
The report concludes that "By any measure, the growth rate of fair use
industries has outpaced overall economic growth in recent years, fueled
productivity gains, and supported millions of jobs."
Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), Ed Black (head of the
CCIA), and Andrew Szamosszegi
(Capital Trade Inc.), an author of the report, spoke at an event on Capitol Hill on
Ed Black argued that policymakers should take note of the size and importance
of fair use industries when considering changes to copyright law. However, he
did not assert that any recent statute caused a decrease in GDP or total
employment, or that any pending legislative proposal would have such an effect.
He argued that fair use is important to the economy, and that policy makers should promote
balance in U.S. and international copyright policy.
Black expressed concern about a pending legislative proposal advocated by copyright
industries, and particularly the movie and music companies -- S 968
the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of
Intellectual Property Act of 2011", or "PROTECT IP Act".
The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC)
amended and approved this bill on May 26, 2011.
Black also argued that the content industries tend to claim more rights than
they posses under copyright law, and to blur fair use rights. He cited as
examples claims regarding televised sporting events, and book publishers'
assertion that nothing in a book can be reproduced without permission.
|Supreme Court Applies Heightened Scrutiny to
State Regulation of Commercial Data
7/15. On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its 6-3
pages in PDF] in Sorrell v. IMS Vermont, holding unconstitutional
under the First Amendment a Vermont statute that regulates certain sales,
disclosures and uses of pharmacy records.
Key to this outcome was the majority's application of "heightened judicial
scrutiny" to this speech. That is, the Constitution merely provides that
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press". The Supreme Court has long since extended this restriction to other
government entities, including state legislatures. In addition, the Supreme
Court has invented categories of speech, regulation of which are subjected to
widely divergent standards of review. Whether are regulation of speech is found
constitutional is often dependent upon which standard of review is applied.
Vermont's regulation of the use of pharmacy records is not in itself of wide
reaching importance. However, the analysis applied by the Court provides some
indication of how it might rule in future cases involving state or federal
legislation, or agency rulemaking, that restricts the collection and sharing of
information about individuals under the guise of privacy protection.
On July 8, 2011, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)
343, a resolution expressing the disapproval of the House of
Representatives. It states that the Supreme Court "incorrectly applied a
heightened First Amendment standard of review to a Vermont statute that lawfully
regulated purely economic activity".
This resolution has no cosponsors. It was referred to the
House Commerce Committee (HCC). See also, Rep.
On July 19, 2011, at 12:00 NOON, the Tech Freedom
(TF) will host an event at which this case will be discussed. The first panel is titled
"Towards Greater Commercial Free Speech Protections?". The speakers will be Greg
Stohr (Bloomberg), Tom Julin (Hunton &
Williams), Bob Revere (Davis Wright
Tremaine), Greg Beck
(Public Citizen), and Richard
Ovelmen (Jordan Burt).
The second panel is titled "Reconciling Data Restrictions & the First
Amendment". The speakers will be Jim
Harper (Cato Institute), John Verdi (Electronic Privacy
Information Center), Jonathan Emord
(Emord & Associates), John Morris (
Center for Democracy & Technology), and
Berin Szoka (TF). See,
notice and registration page.
Justice Kennedy (at left), writing
for a six Justice majority, concluded that the statute at issue violates the First Amendment.
In this case, the state of Vermont enacted a statute that restricts the sale, disclosure,
and use of pharmacy records that reveal the prescribing practices of individual
doctors. It provides that the information may not be sold, disclosed by
pharmacies for marketing purposes, or used for marketing by pharmaceutical
Vermont asserted privacy protection as a rationale for its
The Supreme Court held that "Speech in aid of pharmaceutical
marketing, however, is a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause
of the First Amendment. As a consequence, Vermont's statute must be subjected to
heightened judicial scrutiny. The law cannot satisfy that standard."
wrote that the statute is a content based restriction, aimed at
diminishing the effectiveness of marketing by manufacturers of brand name drugs,
and that the First Amendment requires heightened scrutiny
whenever the government creates a regulation of speech because of disagreement
with the message it conveys.
The Court also wrote that this statute is
not a mere commercial regulation. "Both on its face and in its
practical operation, Vermont's law imposes a burden based on the content of
speech and the identity of the speaker."
The Court added that "The
capacity of technology to find and publish personal information, including
records required by the government, presents serious and unresolved issues with
respect to personal privacy and the dignity it seeks to secure. In considering
how to protect those interests, however, the State cannot engage in
content-based discrimination to advance its own side of a debate."
Under the statute at issue, Vermont "gives possessors of the information broad discretion
and wide latitude in disclosing the information, while at the same time restricting the
information's use by some speakers and for some purposes, even while the State itself can
use the information to counter the speech it seeks to suppress. Privacy is a concept too
integral to the person and a right too essential to freedom to allow its manipulation to
support just those ideas the government prefers."
Justice Breyer wrote a lengthy
dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Ginsburg. He argued that the Court should have applied
its intermediate scrutiny test for commercial speech in the case, and under that standard
concluded that the Vermont statute passes constitutional muster.
Breyer, relying on the 1980
in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York,
which is reported at 447 U.S. 557, argued that heightened scrutiny applies to core political
speech, while the Court should apply looser constraints on the regulation of commercial
Berin Szoka, head of the
Tech Freedom, asserted in a
release that "Future
courts will therefore strike down privacy laws that burden too much speech, such as by
requiring opt-in rather than opt-out. The government must clearly establish the need for
privacy regulation and consider the availability of less-restrictive alternatives, such as
user empowerment, education and the enforcement of existing laws."
He argued that "Policymakers should carefully consider the values recognized
by the Court today before further clamping down on the flow of data that drives
speech throughout the information economy."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who represents the state
that just lost this case, stated in a
release that "the Supreme Court has overturned a sensible Vermont law that
sought to protect the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. This divided ruling is
a win for data miners and large corporations and a loss for those of us who care about
privacy not only in my home state of Vermont but across the nation. States like Vermont
must be able to protect the privacy of sensitive information exchanged between a doctor
and patient. This decision undermines that ability, and risks unduly influencing doctors
in their future prescription choices."
He wrote that "This decision is another example of this Court using the First Amendment
as a tool to bolster the rights of big business at the expense of individual Americans."
|This issue contains the following items:
• US Announces That It Reserves the Right to Respond to Cyber Attacks Militarily
• Department of Defense Releases Strategy for Operating In Cyberspace
• CCIA Releases Report on Importance of Fair Use to U.S. Economy
• Supreme Court Applies Heightened Scrutiny to State Regulation of Commercial Data
• Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Judicial Nominees
New items are highlighted in
|Friday, July 15
The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative
business. It will resume consideration of
HR 2354 [LOC |
"Energy and Water Appropriations Act, 2012". See,
Rep. Cantor's schedule for the
week of July 11.
The Senate will not meet.
8:30 AM. The House Commerce
Committee's (HCC) Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will hold a hearing
titled "Spectrum and Public Safety Issues". The witnesses will be
Christopher McCabe (CTIA), Christopher Moore (San Jose Police Department), Peter Cramton
(University of Maryland), Gordon Smith (National Association of Broadcasters), and Michael
Calabrese (New America Foundation). See,
hearing memorandum. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.
10:00 AM. The House Judiciary
Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet will
hold a hearing on HR __, the "Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention
Act". See, notice.
Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.
|Monday, July 18
There House will be in session the week of July 18.
There will be no votes in the House on July 18. See,
2011 House Calendar.
The Senate will meet at 2:00 PM.
6:00 - 8:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host an event
titled "FCBA Trivia Night". Location: Laughing Man Tavern, 1306 G St., NW.
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) regarding ex parte communications with the
FCC. The FCC adopted this item on February 1, 2011, and released it on February 2, 2011.
It is FCC 11-11 in GC Docket No. 10-43. See,
notice in the
Federal Register, May 2, 2011, Vol. 76, No. 84, at Pages 24434-24436.
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) [27 pages in PDF] regarding rights of way policies and wireless
facilities siting requirements. The FCC adopted and released this item on April 7, 2011.
It is FCC 11-51 in WC Docket No. 11-59. See,
notice in the
Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 95, Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at Pages 28397-28403.
|Tuesday, July 19
The House will meet. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. See,
8:00 -10:00 AM. Broadband Census News LLC will host a panel discussion
titled "Making the Universal Service Fund Into a Universal Broadband Fund".
Breakfast will be served. See, notice
and registration page. This event is also sponsored by the
National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), US
Telecom, Telecommunications Industry Association
(TIA), and ICF International. Location:
Clyde's of Gallery Place, 707 7th St., NW.
8:30 - 9:45 AM. The Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host a panel discussion
titled "What Would Pro-Growth Corporate Tax Reform Look Like?". The
speakers will be Ike Brannon (American Action Forum), Robin Beran (Catepillar, Inc.), and
Rob Atkinson (ITIF). See,
notice and registration page. This
event is free and open to the public. A light breakfast will be served. Location: Room
B-340, Rayburn Building.
10:30 - 11:30 AM. The Heritage
Foundation (HF) will host a lecture by Alan Leong Kah-kit (Legislative Councillor and
2007 Candidate for Chief Executive, Hong Kong SAR) titled "The Centennial of the
1911 Revolution: A Look Into the Future of Hong Kong and China". The HF will
webcast this event. This event is free and open to the public. See,
Location: HF, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.
12:00 NOON - 3:00 PM. The Tech
Freedom (TF) will host an event titled "Sorrell: The Supreme Court Confronts Free
Speech, Marketing & Privacy". See, the
Supreme Court's June 23, 2011,
opinion [53 pages in PDF] in Sorrell v. IMS Vermont, TF's
amicus curiae brief [PDF], and story titled "Supreme Court Applies Heightened
Scrutiny to State Regulation of Commercial Data" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,259,
July 15, 2011. The first panel is titled "Towards Greater Commercial Free Speech
Protections?". The speakers will be Greg Stohr (Bloomberg),
Tom Julin (Hunton & Williams),
Bob Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine),
(Public Citizen), and Richard
Ovelmen (Jordan Burt). The second panel is titled "Reconciling Data Restrictions
& the First Amendment". The speakers will be
Jim Harper (Cato Institute), John Verdi
(Electronic Privacy Information Center),
Jonathan Emord (Emord & Associates),
John Morris (Center for Democracy &
Technology), and Berin Szoka (TF). See,
notice and registration page. This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be
served. Location: Hunton & Williams, 2200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "The
Atlantic Century 2011: Benchmarking U.S. and EU Innovation and Competitiveness".
The speakers will include Chan Heng Chee (Singapore's Ambassador to the US), Lenny
Mendonca (McKinsey), and
Rob Atkinson (ITIF). See, ITIF
notice. This event is free and open to the public. Location: ITIF/ITIC, Suite 610A,
1101 K St., NW.
12:30 - 2:00 PM. The Computer &
Communications Industry Association (CCIA) will host a panel discussion titled
"How Public Policy Can Enable Cloud Computing -- Driving Innovation, Investment
& Job Creation Beyond the IT Sector". The speakers will include
(Georgetown University). This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will
be served. Register by contacting Maggie Clark at mclark at ccianet dot org or
202-783-0070 ext 120. Location: Room B-340, Rayburn Building.
1:00 - 2:15 PM. The New
America Foundation (NAF) will host a panel discussion titled "Kiwi Connected:
What Can the U.S. Learn From New Zealand's Broadband Plan?" The speakers will be
Tom Glaisyer (NAF), Joanne Hovis (President of Columbia Telecommunications Corporation),
Ben Lennett (NAF), and Graham Mitchell (CEO of Crown Fiber Holdings). See,
notice. Location: NAF,
Suite 400, 1899 L St., NW.
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American
Bar Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Implications
of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: Has the Supreme Court Sounded the Death Knell for Some
Class Actions?". See, April 27, 2011,
opinion of the Supreme Court,
and story titled "Supreme Court Holds Class Action Waiver Clauses in Arbitration Contracts
Are Enforceable" in TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert No. 2,228, April 28, 2011. The speakers will be
Amy Brown (Squire Sanders),
Paul Bland (Chavez & Gertler),
Sarah Cole (Ohio
State law school), and
(Stroock Stroock & Lavan). Prices vary. CLE credits. See,
|Wednesday, July 20
9:00 - 10:30 AM. The Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) will host an event titled "An App
Store for Energy: eKNOW and Data-Driven Innovation for Smart Buildings". See also,
S 1029 [LOC |
"Electric Consumer Right to Know Act" or "e-KNOW Act". The speakers will
include Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA),
Lorie Wigle (Intel),
Nick Sinai (EOP's Office of
Science and Technology Policy),
Dean Garfield (ITIC), and
Rob Atkinson (ITIF). See, ITIF
notice. This event is free and open to the public. Location: Room SVC 201-00, Capitol
1:00 - 2:30 PM. The American Bar
Association (ABA) will host a webcast panel discussion titled "Are Products of
Nature Patentable Subject Matter?". The speakers will be Eileen Kane (Penn State
law school), John Hendricks (Hitchcock Evert), Harold Wegner (Foley & Larnder), and
Jacqueline Bonilla (Foley & Lardner). Prices vary. CLE credits. See,
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [110 pages in PDF] regarding extensive revisions
to its Part 11 rules governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS). The FCC adopted this
NPRM on May 25, 2011, and released the text on May 26, 2011. It is FCC 11-82 in EB Docket
No. 04-296. See,
notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 118, Monday, June 20, 2011, at Pages
Deadline to submit initial comments to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) in response to its Public Notice regarding whether certain docketed FCC
proceedings should be terminated as dormant. See, June 3, 2011, Public Notice (DA 11-992 in
CG Docket No. 11-99), and
notice in the
Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 118, Monday, June 20, 2011, at Pages 35892-35893.
|Thursday, July 21
10:00 AM. The
Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) will hold an executive business meeting. The agenda
again includes consideration of Steve Six (to be a Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit),
Christopher Droney (USCA/2ndCir) Jane
Milazzo (USDC/EDLa), Robert Mariani (USDC/MDPenn), Cathy Bissoon (USDC/WDPenn), Mark Hornak
(USDC/WDPenn), and Robert Scola (SDFl). The SJC will webcast this event. See,
notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
12:15 - 1:15 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) Young Lawyers Committee will host a brown bag
lunch. The speaker will be Julius Knapp, long time Chief of the FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET). He will
discuss "career development" and "professional growth opportunities".
For more information, contact Susan Ornstein at susan dot goldhar at gmail dot com, or
Brendan Carr at bcarr at wileyrein dot com. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, 445
12th St., SW.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The DC Bar
Association will host an event titled "The ABCs of IP: A Primer on Patent,
Copyright, and Trademark Law". The speakers will be
Janet Fries (Drinker Biddle & Reath),
Gary Krugman (Sughrue Mion),
(Fitzpatrick Cella), and
(Fitzpatrick Cella). The price to attend ranges from $40 to $55. For more information,
contact 202-626-3463. See,
notice. Location: DC Bar Conference Center, B-1 Level, 1250 H St., NW.
Day one of a two day event hosted by the
Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC) titled "25th Anniversary Access to
Capital and Telecom Policy Conference". The speakers will include
McDowell (FCC Commissioner), Marc Morial (head of the Broadband Opportunity Coalition),
Lewis Dickey (Cumulus Media),
Walter McCormick (US Telecom),
Dean Garfield (Information Technology Industry Council), Bret Perkins (Comcast), Joseph
Waz (Comcast), Tom Tauke (Verizon), and James Cicconi (AT&T). See,
conference web site. Location:
Westin Georgetown Hotel, 2350 M St., NW.
|Friday, July 22
Day two day event hosted by the Minority
Media and Telecom Council (MMTC) titled "25th Anniversary Access to
Capital and Telecom Policy Conference". See,
conference web site. Location:
Westin Georgetown Hotel, 2350 M St., NW..
Deadline to submit reply comments to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) in response to its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [16 pages in PDF] regarding out of band emission
limits for mobile Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS)
devices operating in the 2496-2690 MHz band. This item is FCC 11-81 in WT Docket No. 03-66
and RM-11614. The FCC adopted this FNPRM on May 24, 2011, and released the text on May 27,
2011. See, notice
in the Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 109, Tuesday, June 7, 2011, at Pages 32901-32906.
|Senate Judiciary Committee Considers Judicial
7/14. The Senate
Judiciary Committee (SJC) held an executive business meeting at which it
considered numerous judicial nominees.
The SJC approved by voice vote the nomination of
Stephen Higginson to be a Judge of the U.S.
Court of Appeals (5thCir).
The SJC again held over consideration of the nomination of Steve Six to be a Judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals (10thCir).
His nomination is on the agenda for the SJC's meeting of July 21. See,
The SJC held over for the first time consideration of the nomination of Christopher
Droney to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
(2ndCir). His nomination is on the agenda for the SJC's meeting of July 21. See,
notice. He has been a Judge of the U.S. District
Court (DConn) since 1997. Judge Droney, sitting by designation, joined in the
opinion of a three
judge panel of the Second Circuit in Arista Records v. Launch Media, holding that a
webcasting service is not an interactive service within the meaning of
U.S.C. § 114(j)(7). See also, story titled "Obama Nominates Droney for 2nd
Circuit" in TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 2,233, May 5, 2011.
The SJC approved by voice vote the nomination of Katherine Forrest to be a Judge of
the U.S. District Court (SDNY). See also, story
titled "Obama Nominates Time Warner Copyright Lawyer for SDNY" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No.
2,233, May 5, 2011.
The SJC approved by a vote of 14-4 the nomination of
Alison Nathan to be a Judge of the U.S. District
Court (SDNY). The ranking Republican on the SJC, Sen.
Charles Grassley (R-IA), vote yes, but stated at this meeting that Nathan "has been
admitted to practice law for only 8 years" and that she does "not have enough
experience." He said that "Being appointed a federal District Judge should be the
capstone of an illustrious career. Federal judges should have significant courtroom and
trial experience as a litigator or judge. This is not the place for on-the-job training."
He explained that due in part to her support from the Senators from New York, including
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who is a member of the
SJC, he "will not block or delay" the SJC process. He added that he would vote for
her in the SJC, " with the understanding that there will be a second opportunity to fully
examine" her record, and the he will not "deprive the full Senate from having the
opportunity to express its will".
The SJC also approved the nominations of Jane Milazzo (USDC/EDLa) and Susan
Hickey (USDC/WDArk), and held over until the meeting of July 21 the nominations of
Robert Mariani (USDC/MDPenn), Cathy Bissoon (USDC/WDPenn), Mark Hornak
(USDC/WDPenn), and Robert Scola (USDC/SDFl).
|About Tech Law
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and a subscription e-mail alert.
The basic rate for a subscription to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year for
a single recipient. There are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients.
Free one month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free subscriptions are
available for federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily
E-Mail Alert are not published in the web site until two months after writing.
For information about subscriptions, see
subscription information page.
Tech Law Journal now accepts credit card payments. See, TLJ
card payments page.
TLJ is published by
carney at techlawjournal dot com
3034 Newark St. NW, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998-2011 David Carney. All rights reserved.