Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Filed By 22 State Attorneys General Seeks To Block Net Neutrality Repeal (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: A lawsuit filed today by the attorneys general of 22 states seeks to block the Federal Communications Commission's recent controversial vote to repeal Obama era Net Neutrality regulations. The filing is led by New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, who called rollback a potential "disaster for New York consumers and businesses, and for everyone who cares about a free and open internet." The letter, which was filed in the United States District Court of Appeals in Washington, is cosigned by AGs from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Washington DC.
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
"An open internet -- and the free exchange of ideas it allows -- is critical to our democratic process," Schneiderman added in an accompanying statement. "The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers -- allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online."
A paper insulated wireline monopoly that fully supports NN rules.
Net censorship by social media and the deranking of search engine results.
Enjoy the NN regulations and rules.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
smh
When you can rule by fiat with just one.
As Yoda would tell you - there is another.
That Another is Congress. You know, the guys who are supposed to make laws?
So which would you rather have - an un-elected body making up whatever rules they like (FCC), or rules thought out be representatives from across the country (legislative branch - congress/house).
And they are making an effort to do so. It's WAY BETTER that rules that effect so many companies large and small, come from careful deliberation in the open rather than a handful of commissioners in secret.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If the governments in these states really cared about having a free and open internet, they would repeal any state laws that restrict broadband competition or the roll out of new players (be it companies like Google, community groups, non-profit groups, municipalities or whoever else) and pass state laws that overrule any monopolies at the local level (be they monopolies put in place by local laws or monopolies granted via exclusive franchise deals).
And they would tell AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Charter Spectrum and the other last-century dinosaur ISPs to get stuffed when said ISPs complain about having to actually compete.
I am shocked and appalled that the long discredited idea of states rights is making a comeback under Trump. It has long been on the ash heap of history, as we all know that the federal government has better and smarter people who are capable of making the hard decisions. Decisions that may be controversial, but are nonetheless good for us (otherwise they wouldn't have made them). States rights is also racist. Why are all these good progressives suddenly in favor of small governments and devolving power to the clueless masses? Power is best kept in the federal government where the smart people can use it to benefit all of society, not just what the mob has been told it wants this month.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Almost every single one of these AGs is a Democrat. I still don't fully understand how NN became a partisan issue, but in so far as it has become one, it is pretty clear that there's a pretty massive difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at play here. When people claim that the parties are functionally identical, they are ignoring things like this.
The fundamental issue with the Obama Admin regulations is that they were only regulations, and based on some reports the protections they tried to implement were better suited to bring enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Enough alreafy, flip a coin to decide if the DVD or the HTC should enforce it, write an actual LAW implementing Net Neutrality, and be done with it.
It's not hard to do, the language for the bill was in the ACC regulations, and the clear majority of the public agrees there should be something like the soon to be scuttled regulations, so do it the write way - these "one and phone" acts by the previous administration did little more than placate a voting constituency, they weren't bui!t to last.
Anything one DVD administrator can do, another can undo.
Anything a President can do, another can undo.
Laws passed by Congress, well, it takes an act of Congress to reverse it.
Ken
The petition has no validity because the FCC rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register so it's premature to file it. Petition even acknowledges that.
I'm disappointed in the list of states. Only Kentucky and Mississippi could be considered red states. New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and North Carolina are swing states. But most of the states on the list are blue states.
Why is net neutrality such a partisan issue? Although repealing net neutrality may help certain big businesses, it is at the expense of many other businesses. Republicans have long been associated with policies that favor businesses, but it doesn't seem like this actually is good for businesses. On the other hand, it is almost certainly bad for individuals, just like the other FCC policy changes like redefining the definition of high speed internet.
Why must this be a partisan issue? There was a time when issues like deregulation telecommunications was bipartisan, overwhelmingly passing both houses. It's good that attorneys general are suing, but it's a sad commentary that very few red states have joined in. What the hell is wrong with this country?
I generally despite injecting politics where they don't belong. The constant flamebait political comments in every story are tiresome and ought to be deleted. They add to the polarization in this country, for no good reason. But this is a political story, and it's relevant. It's a damn shame that we're so polarized that we can't even join together and support a common sense issue like net neutrality.
No, it wasn't an executive order, it was a regulatory rule made by a regulatory agency.
I was telling a friend exactly this recently.
Its a rule change, the 1934 title II rules don't seem to apply very well, and what exactly was so broken for the remainder of the years the internet has been around?
And the answer is not much but that set of rules appeared to have significantly deterred investment in upgraded internet infrastructure since it was enabled. Which was predicted and expected. Price controls almost always deter investment and drive away competition.
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Here's a short list of stuff the telecoms did before Net Neutrality:
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
And that's not all of them!
The Republicans control all three branches. They're not ruling by fiat. They won. I suppose you could argue that gerrymandering, voter suppression and our generally corrupt system let them win unfairly. But the one thing you _can't_ argue is that they're ruling by fiat. America got exactly what we voted for. And if you didn't vote for it, well, this is what happens when you don't show up to the polls.
And yes, for what I hope is the last bloody time this _is_ a partisan issue. When a Dems was in the Whitehouse we had NN. When the Dem left a Republican appointed an additional Anti-Net Neutrality FCC chair who did exactly what he was appointed to do. Hell, the Republicans central plank is eliminating regulation, of which NN is one. Meanwhile every Democrat Senator just signed on to undo the FCC ruling. When one party supports an issue and another party doesn't that _is_ partisan politics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I want a parliamentary system with proportional representation, and end to the Senate who's original purpose was to put the breaks on Democracy (or populism if you want to be nasty about it) and the end to the electoral college that served the same purpose.
Our entire system of government was designed by wealthy landowners to give themselves a disproportionate amount of political power at the expense of the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am wondering - do the AG's have standing to file suit here?
Can a bunch of AGs just get together and appeal to a judge to get the government to do something?
(Assuming the topic was not legislated by congress. NN actually went against a legislative directive.)
It just seems really weird that, in the future, random groups of AGs can file suit to force the federal government to do stuff.
Can they really do that?
I think the FCC is on pretty solid footing here, just like I did when they made NN happen. The FCC has the regulatory authority it needs to act here, so I don't see this lawsuit working. Hell, the lawsuits that made NN possible are likely to be used against this suit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because offering Internet costs about $9/month, all costs included. Comcast admitted as much in their SEC filing. This isn't surprising. It's mostly public infrastructure and what isn't was paid for by tax breaks and direct subsidies.
Anyone that tries to compete at this point can't. Comcast would just drop its pants until the competitor was run out of business. That's exactly what happened to Google fiber.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why does a fear of something means we have to have it?
Why do Democrat assume businesses are evil trying to hurt people? The net was free before Obama's net neutrality, and will be free now that it is gone. Until I see proof that companies are doing what Democrats are claiming the will do, I will not believe them. (believing any Democrat is a mistake to begin with)
Why are half the posters here so pathologically fixated on Net Neutrality? Wanna know what life was like before Net Neutrality? Remember what it was like before 2015. Yes... in the ancient history of 3 years ago. That was when the FCC had- you guessed it- zero authority over the Internet. Yet, somehow it still managed to function and be cost-effective. Explain to me why we need it NOW when we haven't had it for the vast majority of the existence of the Internet?
How about we let the market decide? We start by allowing municipalities to set up their own ISPs and offer service to residents. Then, as part of the big infrastructure push, we build a nationwide (well, at least the 48 contiguous states) fiber network that connects all those municipal ISPs. Comcast and friends can do whatever they want on their privately owned network. The municipal option will abide by the principles of net neutrality.
People can choose service from Comcast and friends, or from their local municipal ISP, and the market will decide.
To the contrary, Congress is demonstrably less effective, as witnessed by their continued inability to serve the American people.
True, but that is still actually BETTER than action by a small group in government that you cannot vote out.
Or did you wonder why it took dozens and dozens of pages to write the NN regulations, when anyone you talk to on Slashdot can define what they think NN should be in a paragraph? There were tons of handouts to big telco in the NN regulations that were disbanded.
Inaction is always superior to action without consequence.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And in all those cases there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept, and innovation of course, and probably other things including using another service.
No, net neutrality wasn't an executive order. Net neutrality was a rule implemented by the FCC. Most FCC policies aren't directly dictated by Congress. Instead Congress has tasked the FCC with regulating certain certain aspects of interstate commerce that relate to communication, and has allowed the FCC to define the specific policies.
I would prefer that net neutrality be codified in law rather than through FCC rules. However, Congress is far too broken to make this happen. It is highly unlikely that Congress would do anything with net neutrality, especially because it has broad appeal to the American people. Instead, Congress would use it as a threat to extort votes on more controversial issues.
For example, Congress could address DACA anytime they want to. All it would take is to put a clean DACA bill to a vote in the House and Senate. Instead of passing something as simple as DACA, it's being held back for the purpose of getting votes on the controversial border wall. Voting on even straightforward policies is held up to tie them to unpopular policies. It's a shameful way to run the country, but it's the way things work now in Washington. Net neutrality is popular with Americans, which is exactly why it would be a good pawn to extort votes.
I am shocked and appalled [...] States rights is also racist. Why are all these [...]
Oh racism - is there nothing it can't be applied to?
There is a process to change rules, and required justification. This was omitted. Note how it would really fuck up factory production if EPA rules changed randomly every 4 years.
And, if you recall, a few years ago, in between when Verizon got the courts to block Title 1 (in late 2014) and NN (in 2015), ISPs jumped straight into some pretty gnarly shit.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Yes, being a common carrier would require them to comply with CALEA.
Without the rules, they just comply with CALEA voluntarily on Internet.
You still get wiretapped; you just don't get the projections that them being a common carrier would have afforded you otherwise.
For example: now that they are not common carriers, they no longer have to provide you with 911 service on your VOIP lines.
trump is going to get them to make net neutrality an actual law.
everyone played again and nobody sees the strings!
What jurisdiction do states have on guidelines for federal agencies? Now if they want to actually do something other than grandstand they're free to pass their own rules.
Now good ol' Ajit gets to be deposed. Lets see him back up all those lies under oath.
Yeah there were no complaints of bittorrent being throttled or paid fast lanes being negotiated by crappy US ISPs. Please remove your rose tinted spectacles.
Then perhaps you'll learn to think critically rather than assume everyone who disagrees with you is an evil racist. You have no idea what the skin color or background is of that AC, so in fact, YOU'RE being a racist.
Basically you are saying that since the Union won the Civil War, if you murder enough people that means your ideas are successful.
So if the Nazis had won WWII, the Holocaust would have been a credible idea?
Washington, D.C. is not a state, therefore only 21 states.
Signed Pedantic Coward
Starting this year they won't be funded by the other states anymore.
This was an executive order, rules change only. No legal basis for them to challenge - since there is no law there in the first place.
And the lawsuit filed by the 22 AGs is ... well, a lawsuit, not a prosecution pertaining to some law.
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Historically, the folks on the right of the isle (eg; Republicans) have ignored the best interest of their constituents, while their constituents applaud their actions and call Democrats "libtards" and worse. 22 congress critters oppose something isn't news. That 22 can spark a change would be news. I don't expect this to make a fart in the wind of difference.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
This being slashdot, there are plenty of commentators trying to make killing Net Neutrality the fault of both parties. But the evidence shows clearly that Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it.
Simple, irrefutable, facts, people.
As the industry was maturing, there were signs of change. Such as ISPs suddenly wanting to double dip on fees -- charging end user subscribers for access and services (who were already paying a provider for access) to access their subscribers. This is why some of the biggest proponents of NN are large content providers like Facebook and Google. Those providing access to the end point consumers were not see seeing money from the content people. That money was going to the large backbone companies instead. Foolish executives at the likes of Verizon failed to see the symbiotic nature of peer agreements and that end point services were being bought because of the freely flowing data from other networks.
I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in limited regulation and market dynamics. I also do not want to see the internet become balkanized like the cable tv industry. I don't think any consumer wants to see such a fucked up consumer model like that ever develop again. We do need some smart and limited regulations to ensure an open internet. What the FCC was cornered in to do with Title II is not the answer. Repeal was the right move. We need to ensure that the internet continues to provide a platform for competition and innovation. That no one company can stifle or control what can be delivered to users or what new startup can produce without having heaps of cash to pay gate keepers in every corner.
then we'll have a new administration that will settle it.
but the big question here.. what the fuck is north carolina doing? they are anti-muni fiber yet are signed-on for this.....
using another service.
How nice when one is available, that actually competes!
there are already layers of reprieve, Antitrust action, FCC itself, Justice Dept
Most of us prefer not to have to go to court every time the service goes to shit. Let's make a preemptive attack on that right now, it will save us time and fees. If the government wants to go one better it could nullify all state/local regulations that prohibit municipal/public internet and other exclusive contracts that lock out competition.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The listed states total 20.
what a fucked up president you have elected lol. Attornies have to defend the democracy against him lol. Well at least your democracy works lol...
Anybody can file a lawsuit against anyone else for anything, at any time.
That's not true if the "anyone else" is the FCC. The state AG's are able to sue on behalf of a state, though, which is why the AGs can take this action.
The possibility of court challenges AND/OR actions by congress are the checks and balances on the regulatory agencies, and in this case at the very least the FCC should have some explaining to do if their action is not inline with what the law says the FCC should be doing, or the actions aren't in character with the rulemaking processes of regulatory agencies, OR if the process seem'd to have been tampered with, or the proper public comments not given the correct consideration: for example, if the process was tainted by boatloads of fraudulent / fake comments.
I wish the U.S. had a well-functioning government.
If you look at every other genocide in history, then yes.
Manifest destiny.
Can you explain to me how your FBI can possibly have access to my internet connection? If I see any of your government people around my home, I'll have them arrested or I'll just shoot them. Your shit isn't going to fly in my country.
At some point your country will be part of the United States. Pay homage to your future masters. Besides, we saved your asses in WW2. Be thankful.
Kentucky, NM, Mississippi and Iowa are leftist states now?
Minnesota and Pennsylvania both voted for the orange turd.
numbnuts
Net Neutrality relied on and enforced a law from the 1930s that in the case of the Internet was repealed in the 1990s. We are only returned to status quo pro ante 2012.
The lawsuit should fail for lack of standing. Further, the federal government has supremacy under our Constitution in this regard due to the interstate nature of the Internet, so states cannot pass their own equivalent.
The only way to meaningfully change this is through Congress. All else is political smoke and mirrors.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
With what, your slingshot Eurofag?
None of those people care about NN. They saw another AG fund raising like crazy by suing the Trump administration. They want a piece of the action.
Nothing will come of this other than fund raising emails sent out in mass. Simple, irrefutable, fact.
I think they should call the attempted senate bill to block the repeal the:
Net Neutrality Repeal Repeal Act
The US government does not have the unquestioned level of blind following they used to enjoy in the cold-war era, and only through repealing net neutrality as a means to control the hearts and minds of the people through communications manipulation, do they stand a chance (in hell) of getting a decent propaganda machine back up and running.
The single biggest obstacle to the propaganda machine is an informed public. If the information is filtered, controlled and censored, then propaganda can start to get traction, as there won't be the flood of "I call B.S." feedback, coupled with cited facts that shoot really big holes in any form of crafted misinformation.
They want to bring back fear-driven, knee-jerk reactions so that the people pulling the strings can make the public dance again, and the unfiltered internet is their biggest stumbling block.
The Good Ol' Days of the government having an iron-clad grip on the Media is long gone, and anything put out there that does not line up with the Government Agenda is branded as Fake News. Not that there hasn't been a batch of unfiltered B.S. flowing from the media for a while, it's just more obvious when it involves information contrary to officially issued "facts"...
Antitrust action is very week in the United States. The telecoms are, by and large, an oligopoly and for the most part antitrust suits are only successful against monopolies. It's like Microsoft in the 90s—they were able to point to Apple as competition, so they were able to get away with their anti-competitive behavior.
Furthermore, the current FCC has demonstrated that it certainly doesn't exist as a layer of reprieve for consumers. The "Justice Department" is redundant with antitrust action. Regarding innovationthat's a pretty broad statement. Libertarians are always telling us that innovation will cure all. But innovation always gets bought out by the big fish and it never leads to a diverse market in the long term.
As for "use another service," pretty much all the services available are on that list. I guess you just have to pick your poison.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Like chaining down innovation to a 1930' telecom law. For the love of God just stop
'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is EXACTLY how our government is designed.
Sent from my TARDIS
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Here's a short list of stuff the telecoms did before Net Neutrality:
Your short list includes multiple things unrelated to net neutrality. When you buy a smartphone locked to a carrier the carrier may make deals with the phone maker to bundle or block features on the phone. For example, I have a legacy at&t unlimited plan, and the plan prohibits tethering. Net neutrality has no bearing on this restriction.
Have you checked your Wireless list for "FBI Mobile Unit #42" ??
- the gang at FBI Mobile Unit #42. . .
story of Bob Ferguson, one of those listed in the NN suit above, sends out a fund raising letter about once a week listing his lawsuits against the Trump administration.
I believe people in his state have called for him to be investigated for turning his office into a fund raising campaign instead of doing his job, but he is the AG and would be responsible for appointing such an investigation.
So is it "intentional fallacy" if that is what they are ACTUALLY doing? Before you call a fallacy, you have to make a point that is applies.
racist.
“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
And he also said
"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone."
A different wise man once said "all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword".
The original meaning of Net neutrality was that the Internet should be a fair and even playing field for everybody. If you decide to watch a video on Youtube, or look at Joe Cool's web page, or Google, or watch a movie on netflix, it's bandwidth that YOU as the consumer paid for, and not subject to control by your ISP or anybody else.
Those Attorney Generals don't understand that the name "Net neutrality" was hijacked by the Obama administration. They cooked up an idea to seize control over it so they could apply censorship and searches of things they had no authority over previously. Mr. Obama called their plan "Net Neutrality" The exact same name, but different plan. So when everybody wrote in that they wanted Net neutrality, this modified version is what they gave us.
This would be the same somebody hijacking the name "car" so when you buy a car for $20,000, you get handed a bicycle called "car". Then the salesman says "That's what you said you wanted".
Yes, his version of Net Neutrality did temporarily restrict corporations from throttling traffic, but soon after, all the censorship started.
We want TRUE net neutrality. no censorship, no restriction, no government control, no corporate control. Data is data.
I told all of you before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WHoqsRuxU
Email all the attorney Generals in this case and please explain it to them.
The same place were DACA should have been done. Hell, even Obama knew that when he said things like "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true." and "I'm president, I'm not king." and "there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."
Unfortunately for Obama, he chained much of his legacy to executive orders and executive policy statements rather than real legislation. Those can get undone.
There is little doubt that whatever Obama accomplished via executive actions can be undone by Trump's executive actions. All these lawsuits on Trump executive actions are going to end up in SCOTUS and lose, simply because he has the authority to make these policy actions (like the travel ban)--exactly the same way that Obama had authority to implement his policies (within proper scope...Obama policies were overturned by SCOTUS several times especially cases of regulatory overreach).
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
Corporations are the Government.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Network Neutrality existed in practice until after about 2010. Then a few actors tried to throttle Netflix.
...no more sanctuary cities, and prosecution of people who do similar, we'll bring back net neutrality.
Yes, it was bad you stupid shite. If the regulation was so innocuous, why did Trump and Pai push so hard for it's repeal? Who stands to benefit, the people or the corporations?
Are we supposed to salute them? Are they attorneys, or are they generals?
Perhaps you meant "attorneys general"?
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
It's a bit like we learned that colonies are actually baggage instead of boon. Instead, make them independent on paper but keep them fully dependent. On weapons, on "aid", on anything that lets you dictate the price of whatever you want to get from them.
Same with governments and corporations. Yes, corporations dictate what becomes law. But paying for it, that's something YOU are supposed to do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.
Of course the overall quality of the courts have dropped precipitously recently. A primary example is Judge Alsup, ruling on DACA after having just been slapped down twice by the Supremes.
In a 5-4 ruling issued Dec. 8, the justices temporarily lifted Alsup’s order, though the majority did not reveal its reasons for doing so. The order was fairly remarkable, as the Supreme Court does not generally involve itself in discovery disputes. The ruling provoked a short dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
In a second ruling issued two weeks later on Dec. 22, the high court ordered Alsup to reconsider two government arguments about the court’s power to review DACA’s termination before making a final determination on the shielded federal documents. The second ruling appears to be a compromise among the justices, as there were no noted dissents.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
In common law countries such as the USA, in the absence of legislation or in the case of conflicting legislation, including conflict between the legislature and the Constitution, the courts do create law and set public policy.
For a quick overview, read the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I'll quote one sentence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Please, help in the fight for what is right.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
There you go!.
It absolutely has bearing.
You buy a certain bandwidth and data amount, what you use it for is none of the ISP's business, THAT is net neutrality.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
The Russians saved your worthless American asses in WW2, now they own your god-emperor's fat orange ass.
numbnuts
States can forbid EC votes to go to anyone else other than the preferred candidate even if they're a brain dead elitist moron with no experience.
Seriously, some states have laws that make switching your EC vote illegal.
The Internet was Title II in the days of ARPAnet and NSFnet. That's pre-Obama by a few decades.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I don't think you know New Mexico very well.
Also, it said "lead the charge." CA, NY, etc
Virtually every good material thing you have, including your electronics on which you are participating on this forum, come from businesses and you have them due to the profit motive that inspired that business to build a product and sell it to you.
Government doesn't know how to produce; it just steals stuff from producers.
We found the zombie:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.
These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.
Perhaps you should try reading all the way to the end of the First Amendment?
With what guns? Unless you're in some shithole narcostate or caliphate, your government disarmed you a while ago.
Try reading a book once in a while.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/13/the-u-s-is-not-a-democracy-it-never-was/
You don't even know what a democracy looks like.
duh
Not to mention KS.
Note that (by and large) blue states subsidize red states, not the other way around.
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
.
Ahh, but tha's the secret sauce of Government by corporation. They get to determine how they profit without putting back. We're in the pecuniary extraction phase of the US now. No need to worry though, as soon as we are finished, they will move on to the next country to extract it's wealth - so they will be just fine.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
OTOH, SF and Berkeley and much of Silicon Valley are indeed progressive and liberal, thankfully; it makes it worthwhile to live here.
LOL! Enjoy your shit in the streets:
http://mochimachine.org/wasteland/
So your argument is that since Verizon/etc haven't been total moneygrubbing dickheads in one particular area, then there is no indication that they'll be dicks in this other area. History shows you are wrong. Dicks fuck anything.
Anyone who thinks Russia wasn't the main cause of the downfall of the Nazi's is either eternally clueless or a 'merican. Wait, those are the same thing.
numbnuts
redneck numbnut leach
they never were.
blue states generally contribute more federal tax dollars than they receive back.
red states generally receive more federal tax dollars than they contribute.
and this while blue states also generally tax themselves higher, and have stronger economies, and better supported lower and middle class populations.
its almost like the GOP mantra of low low taxes doesn't actually help the majority of citizens.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
This was an executive order, rules change only.
No, this was a regulatory decision by the FCC, not an executive order.
No legal basis for them to challenge
Weirdly enough the courts have decided otherwise in previous court cases.
All Trump did was revert back to the pre-2015 "bad days" of no net neutrality. Oh, it was so much worse back then, just a couple of years ago!
Actually before 2014 or so there was net neutrality. The courts killed the existing rules in verizon v fcc and explicitly told the fcc that they had to regulate internet providers under title II. So no, before 2015 we had net neutrality and after 2015 we had net neutrality. We're now back to that one year where we didn't have it
Are you sure the FCC followed legal process in reversing their decision? I don't know the law well enough to tell. Ajit Pai was not acting with decorum, and may have made legal mistakes. That's up to the courts to decide.
If you think a government agency has violated the law, you can indeed take it to the courts. That's part of what they're there for. When the Executive Branch does something not authorized by the Legislative Branch, and the Legislative Branch doesn't act effectively, you go to the Judicial Branch. Something about checks and balances.
If you want me to believe the courts have gone downhill lately, you're going to have to convince me that things weren't as bad or worse in the past. It's easier to see the problems with modern courts, as we tend not to remember when courts were slapped down a long time ago.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Comment removed based on user account deletion