I am sorry but when taken to the partisan levels I am less concerned about voter interest because when it comes to the parties there will always be one side saying it's not fair. GP brought up the parties so my comment is in the context of a party winning/losing elections.
If you want to have a discussion about voter disenfranchisement and the reasons for it is one thing. Having a conversation about the proper role of governance between the branches and why one party is getting (somewhat) what they want while the other side is upset is a different thing particularly in context to an article about a judge refusing judicial activism for the party that can't win elections.
Using voter disenfranchisement in defense of judicial activism is a red herring and a very dishonest argument.
In other words, you can't convince enough people to win elections to get what you want. The GOP are getting what they want because they have been winning elections after 2008. I am not just talking about the federal government. How many state legislatures and governor seats the democrats lost after 2008? Your comment seems rather empty because what it comes down to; you can't convince people to vote the way you want. That is your problem. Not mine.
Ugh. Maybe you missed the author of that particular article. Address the argument and not the location where it resides because that authors opinion is orders of magnitude more important than yours.
You didn't quantify anything. Conjecture does not quantify anything.
Misinformation campaign for tobacco: "I would have quit smoking in a year with correct information. That would have X effect my health which results in Y healthcare costs. I am claiming damages for the loss of monetary funds of Y. and the loss of life that X has resulted for a total of Z damages. These damages occurred because I was misled about the product I was buying from a company from a misinformation campaign started by the defendant who is liable for damages."
You: "vague conjecture that may or may not apply to me."
Can you quantify the damages to you personally without vague conjecture?
no other choice. The rest of the government doesn't always act in a manner that makes social change feasible.
If society is not ready to change because half of it doesn't want change. That says more about you wanting to force it through the courts than the process to make that change legitimately through the proper channels.
No amount of breathing by humans makes CO2 a pollutant... Exactly how do you think an EPA regulation will deny you access to breathing?
I understand just fine. You are missing the point. Lawsuit claims CO2 is damaging that must be regulated. Court agrees ordering the government to regulate CO2. The EPA creates rules on how much CO2 can be produced by anything that produces CO2. Lawsuit claims too much CO2 is being produced. Courts agree and order that amount be lowered. There is no legislative oversight. Why is your ~840 lbs a year of CO2 exempt from regulation?
No, the EPA made power grabs to expand on what is a pollutant beyond what the law stated. There maybe merit to have those things as pollutants but it needs to be handled by law and congress not the courts.
You miss the point of "nuance" and "technicalities of jurisprudence". The idiocy is on you. If you use the courts, which are more services toward nuanced individual cases, to proclaim social agendas what will happen is like the example I gave. Large sweeping rulings that more than the intended outcome.
Do you have any example of a judicial exception being created that wasn't overturned by another court? Why would some producers of a pollutant not be regulated by a court ruling that says that pollutant is damaging?
On the other hand, if they are helping ensure that guys like Pruitt get in charge of the EPA and gut the regulations so they don't have to spend money to be poisoning us less, then that's a bit different.
Should advocating for a particular policy or politician that helps you be illegal? Why does a oil company not have the same rights as say, Netflix with Net Neutrality? Or even you personally.
IOW: Should rights be limited because a number of individuals pooled their resources toward a common goal?
That is the argument you are promoting. I say, no, rights are not limited because you pool your resources with like minded people toward a specific goal.
The courts are good at individual cases that have nuance and the technicalities of jurisprudence. That is not the place to drive social agenda to solve societal problems.
People exhale CO2. When the EPA or courts expands the authority of the government to regulate CO2 as a pollutant they can effectively regulate your breathing. Perhaps you can see the problem with using the courts to bypass obvious deficiencies in your thinking.
We have a body made specifically for these kind of things, Congress. Use that instead of judicial fiat.
Such eloquence to have missed what was after "No, it doesn't.". You concede to what I say yet still say I am wrong and is knee jerk while ignoring the core of my argument. Interesting. Why not argue what I say instead of parading your own platitude?
Network neutrality stops giant players from abusing their position in power to make a buck
As long as it is not anti-competitive I don't care. That is where the FTC comes in, which they have stepped in before. Netflix did the something as Comcast and throttle their own users to blame on ISPs for favorable legislation. Are you sure you are not being tricked to support their bottom line? I am not in favor of picking one business because they have better PR and use emotional manipulation to convince large number of ill-informed consumers. You have to prove anti-competitive behavior took place to have a claim.
Address local municipalities creating deals that favor only one provider is a better solution than reworking the entire thing from the top. That is a problem we all see and agree that can help the problem.
Expanding the legal rules from which a company works does increase the cost of entering that industry. Changing the rules from less restrictive Title 1 and information service provider into Title 2 telecommunications service provider does increase the barrier to entry in the industry. Do you disagree and what is your argument against that logic.
Title 2 is poorly written. The implementation was poorly done. Think about what you say before you agree with me and then claim I am wrong and knee jerk because I don't think like you.
I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies,
Apparently you are a mind reader and know who I am or what I think. Regulation increases the barrier to entry for competition strengthening the existing companies position. There is nothing knee-jerk about that. Regulation can be worth it. It can be good. or it can be bad. In this instance I do not see how the cost of increasing the barriers to entry is worth it when the issue is a lack of competition.
NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.
No, it doesn't. Particularly not the implementation that was recently repealed. Title 2 doesn't promote competition and is poorly written to address the reality of an ISP. Different regulations applied to different ISPs depending on what connecting infrastructure you used. There was no guarantee that those regulations would have stood up to court scrutiny because the argument to properly classify ISPs has been going on for decades. That is even setting aside the dubious legality of Wheeler unilaterally expanding FCC authority. The FTC was able to handle anti-competitive behavior before Wheelers initiative they can do it again.
If increasing regulation and increasing the barriers to entry is your idea of promoting competition then you are delusional.
Then work on that instead of solidifying their market position. Everyone on both sides of this debate want competition yet one side thinks that government regulation ensuring a monopoly is the answer. It baffles me.
while the repeal of title II classification which was enforcing Network Neutrality came form republicans despite it being massively popular with their voter base, it's important to remember that this is NOT a partisan issue. EVERYONE wants network neutrality and the only people who are pushing against it are those who are bought and paid for.
Most of the people or "voter base" do not understand the issue or the laws pertaining and so are easily swayed by emotional PR campaigns that distort the conversation and the issue. "Net Neutrality" as originally codified was a concession to large companies saying "we want competition but it's too hard so you can have a monopoly but promise you will play nice!". I would rather pursue true competition rather than codify a monopoly. So no I do not want Net Neutrality. I want competition.
Also, Title 2 is not equipped to handle ISPs as it is currently written. The law must be changed to handle ISPs so that if you have an ISP the rules apply regardless if it is wireless, cable, or DSL. Further, it is ill-equipped to handle the distinction made in the law from telecommunication service provider and information service provider as an ISP can be both but the law doesn't allow. That debate has been going on in the courts for decades because the law is faulty. To my main, it doesn't promote competition. Why is title 2 the answer?
Do I get a check from big ISP because I disagree with you? Here's a thought, engage in honest conversation and debate without poisoning the well.
Forgive me, but I will bet on the institution that protects speech that is offensive rather than the institution that allows arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit speech. Seems rather obvious which is "best".
Tell me more about holocaust denial in Europe. I also like that such subjective conditions and restrictions such as "prevention of disorder" or "morals" are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech yet the ECHR is the biggest defender of freedom of speech. Seems to me rather contradictory. Do you think the government can limit that right based on dubious philosophies like morals and disorder or vague legalities like "necessity in a democratic state"?
How can the ECHR be the biggest defender of freedom of speech when it has arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit that freedom?
the biggest defender of freedom of speech is often the European Court of Human Rights,
How do you quantify that? They have nice exceptions built in to allow the outlawing of "hate speech". I find it hard to believe that any institution that values free speech would allow arbitrary subjective definitions to permeate their interpretations as though they promote freedom when those interpretations are limiting in freedom by design.
The SCOTUS doesn't allow hate speech and has protected the speech of minorities with awful opinions, like the KKK or neo-nazis precisely because freedom of speech means that my rights start where your feelings begin and if you can outlaw arbitrary subjective definitions, like 'hate speech', then you do not have freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sorry but when taken to the partisan levels I am less concerned about voter interest because when it comes to the parties there will always be one side saying it's not fair. GP brought up the parties so my comment is in the context of a party winning/losing elections.
If you want to have a discussion about voter disenfranchisement and the reasons for it is one thing. Having a conversation about the proper role of governance between the branches and why one party is getting (somewhat) what they want while the other side is upset is a different thing particularly in context to an article about a judge refusing judicial activism for the party that can't win elections.
Using voter disenfranchisement in defense of judicial activism is a red herring and a very dishonest argument.
this is quoting your own words two weeks ago
citation.
Was drug scheduling set up through judicial fiat or legislative oversight?
Passing the buck. As in, letting the legislature do their job.
In other words, you can't convince enough people to win elections to get what you want. The GOP are getting what they want because they have been winning elections after 2008. I am not just talking about the federal government. How many state legislatures and governor seats the democrats lost after 2008? Your comment seems rather empty because what it comes down to; you can't convince people to vote the way you want. That is your problem. Not mine.
Ugh. Maybe you missed the author of that particular article. Address the argument and not the location where it resides because that authors opinion is orders of magnitude more important than yours.
I care more about proper governance than climate change. Notice the argument isn't about the validity of climate change.
You didn't quantify anything. Conjecture does not quantify anything.
Misinformation campaign for tobacco: "I would have quit smoking in a year with correct information. That would have X effect my health which results in Y healthcare costs. I am claiming damages for the loss of monetary funds of Y. and the loss of life that X has resulted for a total of Z damages. These damages occurred because I was misled about the product I was buying from a company from a misinformation campaign started by the defendant who is liable for damages."
You: "vague conjecture that may or may not apply to me."
Can you quantify the damages to you personally without vague conjecture?
You're not the brightest turd in the punch bowl. Are you?
no other choice. The rest of the government doesn't always act in a manner that makes social change feasible.
If society is not ready to change because half of it doesn't want change. That says more about you wanting to force it through the courts than the process to make that change legitimately through the proper channels.
No amount of breathing by humans makes CO2 a pollutant... Exactly how do you think an EPA regulation will deny you access to breathing?
I understand just fine. You are missing the point. Lawsuit claims CO2 is damaging that must be regulated. Court agrees ordering the government to regulate CO2. The EPA creates rules on how much CO2 can be produced by anything that produces CO2. Lawsuit claims too much CO2 is being produced. Courts agree and order that amount be lowered. There is no legislative oversight. Why is your ~840 lbs a year of CO2 exempt from regulation?
No, the EPA made power grabs to expand on what is a pollutant beyond what the law stated. There maybe merit to have those things as pollutants but it needs to be handled by law and congress not the courts.
This fact, in my opinion, has enough merit for a trial.
How do you quantify the damages to you personally for this 'misinformation campaign'?
You miss the point of "nuance" and "technicalities of jurisprudence". The idiocy is on you. If you use the courts, which are more services toward nuanced individual cases, to proclaim social agendas what will happen is like the example I gave. Large sweeping rulings that more than the intended outcome.
Do you have any example of a judicial exception being created that wasn't overturned by another court? Why would some producers of a pollutant not be regulated by a court ruling that says that pollutant is damaging?
why judges should be required to accept the input of nonlegals like, you know, scientists and software professionals.
Never heard of Friends of the Court? Amicus curiae to the Latin speakers.
Please learn about how the judiciary works before you spew misinformation.
On the other hand, if they are helping ensure that guys like Pruitt get in charge of the EPA and gut the regulations so they don't have to spend money to be poisoning us less, then that's a bit different.
Should advocating for a particular policy or politician that helps you be illegal? Why does a oil company not have the same rights as say, Netflix with Net Neutrality? Or even you personally.
IOW: Should rights be limited because a number of individuals pooled their resources toward a common goal?
That is the argument you are promoting. I say, no, rights are not limited because you pool your resources with like minded people toward a specific goal.
The courts are good at individual cases that have nuance and the technicalities of jurisprudence. That is not the place to drive social agenda to solve societal problems.
People exhale CO2. When the EPA or courts expands the authority of the government to regulate CO2 as a pollutant they can effectively regulate your breathing. Perhaps you can see the problem with using the courts to bypass obvious deficiencies in your thinking.
We have a body made specifically for these kind of things, Congress. Use that instead of judicial fiat.
Glad the judge had enough sense to throw this case out.
Want to get public action on climate change? Convince people and win elections. Using the courts to forward your agenda can and will backfire.
I seem to remember a particular article written about a party using the courts to forward their agenda is bad.
Such eloquence to have missed what was after "No, it doesn't.". You concede to what I say yet still say I am wrong and is knee jerk while ignoring the core of my argument. Interesting. Why not argue what I say instead of parading your own platitude?
Network neutrality stops giant players from abusing their position in power to make a buck
As long as it is not anti-competitive I don't care. That is where the FTC comes in, which they have stepped in before. Netflix did the something as Comcast and throttle their own users to blame on ISPs for favorable legislation. Are you sure you are not being tricked to support their bottom line? I am not in favor of picking one business because they have better PR and use emotional manipulation to convince large number of ill-informed consumers. You have to prove anti-competitive behavior took place to have a claim.
Address local municipalities creating deals that favor only one provider is a better solution than reworking the entire thing from the top. That is a problem we all see and agree that can help the problem.
Expanding the legal rules from which a company works does increase the cost of entering that industry. Changing the rules from less restrictive Title 1 and information service provider into Title 2 telecommunications service provider does increase the barrier to entry in the industry. Do you disagree and what is your argument against that logic.
Title 2 is poorly written. The implementation was poorly done. Think about what you say before you agree with me and then claim I am wrong and knee jerk because I don't think like you.
I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies,
Apparently you are a mind reader and know who I am or what I think. Regulation increases the barrier to entry for competition strengthening the existing companies position. There is nothing knee-jerk about that. Regulation can be worth it. It can be good. or it can be bad. In this instance I do not see how the cost of increasing the barriers to entry is worth it when the issue is a lack of competition.
NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.
No, it doesn't. Particularly not the implementation that was recently repealed. Title 2 doesn't promote competition and is poorly written to address the reality of an ISP. Different regulations applied to different ISPs depending on what connecting infrastructure you used. There was no guarantee that those regulations would have stood up to court scrutiny because the argument to properly classify ISPs has been going on for decades. That is even setting aside the dubious legality of Wheeler unilaterally expanding FCC authority. The FTC was able to handle anti-competitive behavior before Wheelers initiative they can do it again.
If increasing regulation and increasing the barriers to entry is your idea of promoting competition then you are delusional.
BUT THEY'RE NOT COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER!
Then work on that instead of solidifying their market position. Everyone on both sides of this debate want competition yet one side thinks that government regulation ensuring a monopoly is the answer. It baffles me.
while the repeal of title II classification which was enforcing Network Neutrality came form republicans despite it being massively popular with their voter base, it's important to remember that this is NOT a partisan issue. EVERYONE wants network neutrality and the only people who are pushing against it are those who are bought and paid for.
Most of the people or "voter base" do not understand the issue or the laws pertaining and so are easily swayed by emotional PR campaigns that distort the conversation and the issue. "Net Neutrality" as originally codified was a concession to large companies saying "we want competition but it's too hard so you can have a monopoly but promise you will play nice!". I would rather pursue true competition rather than codify a monopoly. So no I do not want Net Neutrality. I want competition.
Also, Title 2 is not equipped to handle ISPs as it is currently written. The law must be changed to handle ISPs so that if you have an ISP the rules apply regardless if it is wireless, cable, or DSL. Further, it is ill-equipped to handle the distinction made in the law from telecommunication service provider and information service provider as an ISP can be both but the law doesn't allow. That debate has been going on in the courts for decades because the law is faulty. To my main, it doesn't promote competition. Why is title 2 the answer?
Do I get a check from big ISP because I disagree with you? Here's a thought, engage in honest conversation and debate without poisoning the well.
Very convincing.
Forgive me, but I will bet on the institution that protects speech that is offensive rather than the institution that allows arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit speech. Seems rather obvious which is "best".
Rick James says cocaine is a helluva drug.
Tell me more about holocaust denial in Europe. I also like that such subjective conditions and restrictions such as "prevention of disorder" or "morals" are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech yet the ECHR is the biggest defender of freedom of speech. Seems to me rather contradictory. Do you think the government can limit that right based on dubious philosophies like morals and disorder or vague legalities like "necessity in a democratic state"?
How can the ECHR be the biggest defender of freedom of speech when it has arbitrary subjective exceptions to limit that freedom?
the biggest defender of freedom of speech is often the European Court of Human Rights,
How do you quantify that? They have nice exceptions built in to allow the outlawing of "hate speech". I find it hard to believe that any institution that values free speech would allow arbitrary subjective definitions to permeate their interpretations as though they promote freedom when those interpretations are limiting in freedom by design.
The SCOTUS doesn't allow hate speech and has protected the speech of minorities with awful opinions, like the KKK or neo-nazis precisely because freedom of speech means that my rights start where your feelings begin and if you can outlaw arbitrary subjective definitions, like 'hate speech', then you do not have freedom of speech.
SCOTUS: 1
ECHR: 0
Sometimes it feels like we've all been duped, the Nazi's actually won WWII and their running the EU
Germans just can't help themselves. They see a Europe and go on a power trip.