Commentary on U.S. Supreme Court decisions is ubiquitous and criticism of U.S. Supreme Court decisions is not hard to come. As always, SBM Blog is necessarily agnostic on the wisdom of any court or any of particular decision but we feel compelled to take note of two commentaries on recent court decisions for their striking audacity. The first is by the redoubtable Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the U/C Irvine School of Law, who says that the 9-0 decision McBurney v. Young, holding that it is constitutional for Virginia to let only Virginia citizens invoke its freedom of information act, "makes no sense." The second is a commentary in Salon about the Court recent gene patenting decision, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. The title tells the story -- "The Supreme Court’s Sketchy Science: Their BRCA patent ruling reads like an earnest seventh grader’s book report." Here's an example of the tone:
The court’s strain to understand this science is manifest in the overly respectful, declarative language used in the ruling. Statements such as “the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs” are simply adorable.
Frankly I'd like to see its author attempt to write a U.S. Supreme Court decision. I'm guessing that the attempt would read like the report of an earnest, clever Ph.D. candidate in the department of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard University. Which he is.
Meanwhile, if you want some quick takes from patent lawyers on the significance of Myriad, go to PatentlyO, "Twenty Thoughts on the Importance of Myriad."