Nissan Leaf wins its division in Pike's Peak race

The Nissan Leaf competes on the Pikes Peak hill climb course.
(Credit: Nissan)
The Nissan Leaf can add another trophy to its shelf full of awards, this one for a successful run in the Pike's Peak International
Hill Climb. The race was held on Sunday, June 26.
The Leaf wholesale abercrombie entered by Nissan was near
stock, with no changes to the drivetrain. Required safety equipment was added to the cabin, and Nissan swapped the standard low
rolling resistance tires for some a little more grippy. One of the most important pieces of equipment was its driver, veteran
Nissan off-road truck racing champion Chad Hord.
However, the Leaf competed in the newly created electric car division, which cisted of a field of two. Its only opponent was the
Summit Racing HER-02, which raced in the exhibition class last year.
Despite the lack of competition, the mountain course itself is grueling, with 156 turns over 12.42 miles, and a climb of 4,700
feet. The Leaf turned in a time of 14 minutes 33 seconds.
Nissan pointed out that, unlike the gas engine cars competing in the different divisi, the Leaf's electric motor and batteries
were unaffected by the thin atmosphere at the upper third of the course.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for himself and Chief Justice Justice Roberts, agreed that the California law was unctitutional
but disagreed with the approach taken by the other five Justices in the majority.
"In cidering the application of unchanging ctitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology," Alito wrote in a
concurring abercrombie and fitch wholesale opinion, "this court should proceed with
caution. We should make every effort to understand the new technology. We should take into account the possibility that developing
technology may have important societal implicati that will become apparent only with time."
Alito was troubled by the "vividness" of video games over traditional literature and worried that future technical innovati,
including 3D and sensory feedback, could make them even more dangerous. "And if this is so, then for at least some minors, the
effects of playing violent video games may also be quite different. The court acts prematurely in dismissing this possibility out
of hand," he wrote
But the majority decision did nothing to preclude future efforts to prove a strong and compelling link between playing video games
and violent behavior by children.
In the end, Alito seemed mostly disappointed that the majority didn't share his moral outrage at the content of some video games,
which he spent several pages describing in lurid detail.
As the majority notes, "ironically, Justice Alito's argument highlights the precise danger posed by the California Act: that the
ideas expressed by speech--whether it be violence, or gore, or racism--and not its objective effects, may be the real reason for
governmental proscription."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer filed separate dissents. Justice Thomas argued somewhat incoherently that since parents
have absolute control over their children, the First Amendment simply does not apply to minors. Justice Breyer argued that
restricting the sales of violent video games to adults was only a "modest" restriction on speech.
For some wholesale abercrombie and fitch reason, Justice Breyer also prepared a 15-page
appendix listing competing and inconclusive studies on violent video games, none of which was cited by attorneys representing
California in any case.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, who defended the statute while serving as the state's attorney general, had no comment on today's
decision, according to a spokesperson.
Defenders of the First Amendment can celebrate a strong victory in today's decision. But if history is any guide, the ill-
cidered California law won't be the last effort by state governments to restrict or ban future innovati in media. As
technology makes the experience of information more interactive and more vivid, the attacks will only increase in frequency and
volume.