Talk:Kahle v. Gonzales

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of article

Why is this page called Kahle v. Gonzales instead of Kahle v. Ashcroft? Sander123 14:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because John Ashcroft has been replaced by Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States; my understanding is that since the case was not directed at John Ashcroft as a person, but only in his position of Attorney General, it is automatically redirected at his successor. Schutz 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Makes sense, thanks! Sander123 20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals

The article claims that: "No futher appeals are possible. [3]" Why is an appeal to the supreme court impossible? I think that there is federal jurisdiction in a copyright case? (I can't make it out from the Reuters article either, although there is a slim chance that I'm seeing a different article than was there originally.) Who can enlighten me? Sander123 09:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this cannot be appealed further. kdonovan11

That's my view as well. Also the source [3] does not in fact claim this at all. I've removed the sentence, making no claim either way. Still it would be nice to report the current status. Does anybody know what lessig's plans are? Sander123 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]