Supreme Court Backs Do-Not-Call List 446
The Ghetto Imp writes "According to CNN Money, the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of telemarketing companies, which were claiming that the do-not-call list violated their free speech rights. "
Short-term memory loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this the same government that instituted the Patriot Act? (I know, some of it was recently declared unconstitutional [slashdot.org], but the Act was put in place first.)
It's very nice that privacy is becoming a little more important these days, at least with the state governments, but please don't try to rewrite history.
That said, I'm very happy the do-not-call list will remain. It's cut down my dinner interruptions to almost zero.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
By having checks and balances with each branch able to step in and correct the other, we can keep things relatively in line. Not that things like PATRIOT don't get through, but *without* the checks and balances, there's a pretty good chance we'd see a lot more and a lot worse than that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Informative)
I say that those in the legislative branch are kneejerk reactionaries. They are, because they have to be. They have to be sensative to everything that goes on, and usually overreact to a situation to appear as if they are "tough" on an issue, or weren't slacking off on the issue before it became important, i.e. terrorism. A representative's position is up for re-election every 2 years. They have to be on top of every minor complaint any of their constituants brings up, after all, dissappoint a constituant, and that is a vote against you (along with everyone they tell). Senators have a bit more cushion, after all, they have a longer term at 6 years. Also, they cover more area and constiuants, so they can afford to piss off someone on the south side, and still remain strong with their base on the north side. The goal of course is to be more concerned about long term health of the country, but they can be kneejerk reactionaries as well when something really important happens to the country.
In the judicial branch, things are a bit different. And while local judges may be elected, most in the federal government are appointed based on their track record as a judge. Therefore they can make "unpopular" decisions, and strike down legislation without fear of being voted out of office.
Take for instance the COPA legislation (Child Online Protection Act). A very popular bill with both legislators and a certain portion of the constituants whom they represent. Yet every version that has been tested in a court of law has been struck down so far. The legislative branch passes a new version, it goes to trial, and is struck down as being unconstitutional. The judges are free to rule in favor of defending the constitution without fear of retaliation from those who are upset with their unpopular decision. They can defend the constitution when the legislature has failed to defend it.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme Court is often the only institution standing between the rights of minorities and the tyranny of the majority, and that my friend is a very, very good thing freedom in general.
Out with the old. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
And what, exactly, is necessarily wrong with a monarchy? Must it be what it used to be? And even if it would be that bad, would you say that a republic with a president necessarily is better? Is it?
I live in a monarchy, and if it doesn't go against your worldview too much, we are actually free (we can even use sex toys, unlike our Texan friends), we don't have a government that locks us up indefinitely, we don't have the death penalty, we believe in healthcare and education for everyone (I'm silly enough to believe a civilisation worth its name should do that), we're not very religious, and we have long ago decided to get rid of any imperalistic and oppressive ambitions. Can your "modern" country brag about the same things?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
I won't even respond to your last troll of a paragraph.
mo' narch! (Score:3, Insightful)
Just a small question: (Score:3, Funny)
WHERE?
And why post anonymously about it? Is somebody tapping your line or something?
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:3, Informative)
England is a very different matter of course.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:4, Insightful)
--RJ
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:4, Interesting)
The system works. Sometimes it just takes a little more time.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:5, Informative)
The ruling you're probably alluding to, Doe v. Ashcroft [aclu.org], has not yet reached the Supreme Court. The decision reported in the news last week was handed down by Judge Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York [uscourts.gov].
If the government chooses to appeal, it must first bring its case to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [uscourts.gov] (the 2nd Circuit is a geographical division that includes New York.) The loser there can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case - it has thousands of petitions and can only hear a few dozen each term.
If, as in the do-not-call case, the Supreme Court chooses not to hear the case (denies cert), the decision of the lower court stands. This shouldn't be read as an affirmative decision of the Court to favor one side of the issue or not, just a deference to the judgment of the circuit courts coupled with an inability to hear every case that goes up.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress, the Attorney General, and the President were the groups responsible for the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court is a different department of government.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:4, Funny)
so is this a simple typo on "benevolence," a freudian slip, or a clever play on "beneficial violence?"
Beneviolence, a new word? (Score:3, Funny)
1: Acts of violence committed by your team.
Maleviolence
1: Acts of violence committed upon your team.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:3, Insightful)
but please don't try to rewrite history.
What does a judge saying the government has an interest in protecting privacy have to do with rewriting history? He's not commenting on what they've done--and certainly not on any particular piece of legislation with the possible exception of the one (Do-Not-Call) before him--he's merely stating that the government has an interest in protecting privacy and this bill does so. He's making a legal argument. That's what judges do.
Actually, if you'd put emphasis on
Whereas in Canada... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:2)
Don't think for a moment that any of that pertains to the government, though.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit. From EPIC (Score:3, Informative)
* Title III: Requires probable cause, a high legal standard to meet, from a judge for real-time interception of the content of voice and data communications. See EPIC's Wiretapping Page.
* Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): Governs government access to stored email and other ele
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:5, Interesting)
Your description of the Patriot Act is fairly accurate. There are some sections that are newer, but the biggest reason why the PA is a "bad thing" is that it largely removes the process of checks and balances for certain things. The recently overturned portion of the Act involved a nearly 30-year-old law dealing with requests for confidential information. The change from that old law was that the FBI no longer needed a court order/warrant/notification of the parties involved. So the FBI was, as the judge put it, performing "self-certification" in order to get this information. No cause, no court, no preponderance of evidence, nothing. The FBI could want it and grant it all in-house. Yes, it's faster. But it gives them more unchecked power.
Not all of the Patriot Act is bad. But that careful reading you suggest will reveal a lot more than a compilation of existing law.
Re:Short-term memory loss (Score:2)
=====
SEC. 505. MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES.
(a) TELEPHONE TOLL AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS- Section 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the
Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK (Score:2)
Why don't you try it first and find out for yourself rather than jumping to conclusions. We've had this in the UK for a while now, and it reduced my nuisance telemarketing calls from 3/day to about 3/year.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating !!
Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK (Score:3, Interesting)
No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster. It would be seen as restricting speech to people who have not explicitly declared that they did not want it. It would not be people asserting their privacy rights over speech, it would be them waiving it and restricting speech in absentia of the waiver.
And phone calls
Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK (Score:3, Insightful)
A printing press is not generally accessible to the public, on private property, and its use consumes paper, ink, power, and wear on expensive equipment.
A telephone is on a generally publically accessible network (has no access controls over whom can cause it to ring) and its use does no
Re:Do not call list DOES NOT WORK (Score:3, Informative)
The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].
Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, before the list I was getting several calls a week and now I get none except "personalized messages from the President of the United States"... What regulations existed before that let me get off their list? Telling them I wanted on or off their list (whichever they interpreted as the correct way) or allowing me to have caller ID so that I could see "Unknown" show up and choose not to answer only to have them fill up my answering machine with a partial message?
I do agree that political messages should be disallowed. It would be different if the political messages were from non-profit groups representing a candidate that wasn't using tax dollars to campaign and wasn't bringing in MILLIONS of dollars of donated money to spread his name... I do NOT appreciate a 6pm phone call from "President Bush" where he tells me more of what I don't care to hear. I especially don't appreciate when it runs onto my answering machine messages too. I want to declare all the area outside of my phone line a Free Speech Zone. He's free to spread his message there where I don't have to listen to it.
How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get? Buffalo Wild Wings asks when you order, Best Buy now asks when you buy something, we all know and love Shit Shack for what they used to do and probably still do, etc. They are asking for one reason and one reason only... To get your number so that they (and their subsidiaries) can call you even though you're on a DNC list. It's a fucking scam plain and simple. There's no reason to even bother with DNC legislation if we are going to allow gaping holes to exist to trick the population into handing over the information the scam artists need. If our government is really concerned with "protecting us from evil" they can start right fucking there.
Keep the god damn phone lines for opt-in calls only after all that's REALLY protecting my privacy right?
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:2, Interesting)
People can ask whatever they want. You have the right not to answer. I have never had anyone refuse to do business with me because I wouldn't give them my phone number.
n4
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:3, Informative)
I walked out the door.
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:2)
I'd have done the same in that situation.
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:2)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:2)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:5, Funny)
How about next we ban companies from asking for your phone number every single chance they get?
The DNC list definitely makes it possible to opt-in by giving your phone number out and signing a contract (read the fine print). So what I do is give out real numbers that do not belong to me. For example, the police department in Lakewood, Ohio, 44107, is 216-521-1234. Stores all over the east coast have that number in their databases. I list it publically in my Yahoo profile and I think on my web site. I had an old high school friend IM me asking why a policeman picked up the phone when he called me. I am evil :-)
Anyway, as long as companies try to take away my freedom not to be interrupted with spam email, spam paper mail, and spam phone calls, I will exercise my freedom to fuck with their databases.
So long as the police don't catch up to you... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:2)
My father works at prison so I would amuse myself by always giving out the phone number of the prison to anyone who asked me for my number without purpose. As long as I am in their database under a number I know it all works out. They can retrie
End Political Spam (Score:3, Informative)
I'm actually surprised the SC has taken this popular, but problematic approach.
I predict that telemarketers will all go into "legitimate" businesses, such as raising money for cancer, communists, boy scouts, lesbian child care co-ops, and in short any tenable proposition.
In failing to insist on full content neutrality, the SC has opened the door on a dual stan
Re:Let's end the other BS... trying to in Canada (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
And currently they can deny you the sale as well (which has happened to me at Radio Shack and at restaurants).
When I am asked for my phone number I politely tell them "No thank you." This usually gets a negative response of "sir, I need your phone number to complete the sale." I then again tell them politely that I am not interested in giving out my phone number. Sometimes this will work and they will just cancel it or whatever but at other times it must receive managerial attention which includes them explaining why they need it, etc.
Why don't we just ban the practice outright for the reasons I stated above and be done with it. There is absolutely no fucking reason that Best Buy needs my phone number when I buy something. There is no reason that BW3 needs to know my phone number when I order 12 wings.
Maybe I'm missing something here?
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:3, Funny)
They'll probably ask if you're from Hollywood.
Re:Let's end the other bullshit while we're at it. (Score:2, Interesting)
*unplugs phone* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*unplugs phone* (Score:2)
Re:*unplugs phone* (Score:2)
The truth is, AS INDEVIDUALS we could do a lot more for ourselves to reduce telemarketing and spam. But most of us don't.
I dunno about you... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyways, I'm surprised the judge even considered the telemarketer's case--It really isn't a free speech issue at all IMHO. The DNC list doesn't restrict what you may say, it merely restricts how you may deliver your message in order to protect the privacy of individuals.. They can still rent billboards, advertise on TV, run newspaper and radio ads, etc etc. Unless they can make a case that their message is more important than privacy (say, public safety, criminal investigation or election information) then they have no case.
They have no more right to solicit via telephone than they have to walk up and down a residential street at 2 AM with a bullhorn yelling "GET YER CITIFINANCIAL MASTERCARD HERE FOLKS!!! ONLY TWO PERCENT INTRODUCTORY AAAYYEEE PEEEE AHRRRRRR!". They are both equally disruptive to personal lives, and the free speech argument is flimsy at best. You can take you message public and that's your right, but you cannot use such agressive tactics to FORCE you message on others and argue it is your fundamental right without a damn good reason.
Re:*unplugs phone* (Score:3, Insightful)
Right to Free Speech != Right to be Heard.
Say what you like. The intended audience is in no way obliged to care, or even to attend you.
Victory, for now (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I wonder how long it will take before the majority of Americans have as well-formed an opinion, or as loud a collective voice, on issues like copyright and fair use of music, movies, software, etc. I fear it'll take as much in-your-face annoyance as telemarketers produced before anything really gets done (and maybe not even then, if corporate greed has anything to say about it...)
Re:Victory, for now (Score:5, Insightful)
The Supreme court isn't supposed to reflect the wishes of the majority of the American people. That is what the legislative and executive branches are for. The Supreme court is charged with ensuring the other branches remain within the boundaries of the law. Historically, it has also served to resist "mobocracy" by protecting the minority from the wishes of the majority.
Re:Victory, for now (Score:2, Informative)
Whilst the free speech argument works for a while- (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I welcome this addition to the US law - we've had a similar system to it over here in the UK for some time, and it really does work.
Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just the equivilant of a No Tresspassing sign, only actually enforced. If only No Tresspassing signs carried as harsh a penalty.
Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi (Score:5, Funny)
It's not tresspassing or anything like that (Score:3, Insightful)
Advertisers aren't the only ones who have this problem, many people
Re:Whilst the free speech argument works for a whi (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear.
By having a phone connected to the public networks, you're accepting unsolicited ATTEMPTS to call you. I.e. people can freely dial your number. What you do once they place the call -- pick up, ignore it, send it to some sort of automated doohicky -- is up to you; they can't force you to do a particular thing, though they can initiate the attempt.
This is akin to people being allowed to send you mail by default, but your not having to read it. Or people being allowed to knock on your door by default, but your not having to answer it. And so forth.
The telemarketing industry has done precisely that
Quite false, until the day comes when telemarketers can magically cause my phone's handset to levitate off the hook. They cannot force you to answer. There is no trepass. Only a request for you to answer, which is not any different than someone asking you at your door if they may enter.
It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts
Which brings us back into the realm of implicit intent. Why do people publish their home phone numbers? Because they must want to receive unsolicited phone calls. If they don't want that, then they are free to a) not have a phone, b) not publish the number anywhere, c) explicitly tell people not to call them (e.g. by saying so to individuals, or by saying so to the world via a DNC list).
Don't Talk About Constitutional Rights... (Score:4, Informative)
These are the two parts you need to understand. The Fourth Amendment... ...and the Ninth Amendment... These describe how the right to privacy already exists, and how the Constitution prevents laws that abrogate that right.
Virg
Free speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right to make money through badgering salespeople desparate for commission. Honestly, it's sad how abusive corporate America will be to earn that extra dollar. No consideration whatsoever.
-- n
Exactly where... (Score:3, Insightful)
We have a right to speak, but NO one has any obligation to listen!
Re:Exactly where... (Score:2)
Corporate Free Speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps this will start a trend of defining (and more importantly, further limiting) this "Corporate Free Speech" assumed and abused by those who believe it is their right to harass us for the sake of profits.
government is actually helping telemarketers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:government is actually helping telemarketers (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus, if people are given the option of taking a one-time action that will block telemarketing (rather than having to resist unwanted sal
Reuters article (Score:4, Interesting)
At least this time there is a valid reason for my story being rejected.
from TFA: (Score:5, Funny)
In related headlines, robbers worldwide have begun arguing that they don't like it when their victims carry guns.
This really seems like an argument from desparation.
They're blocking intrusive advertising (Score:2)
I'll take my victories where I can, but personally I'd rather be harassed by solicitors than have to live under the USA PATRIOT Act.
Silver lining... (Score:2)
See? It isn't that bad.
Thank God. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Spoiled? (Score:2)
Spoiled implies a luxury. This is a right. In these parts it's called "the right to quiet enjoyment".
Remember: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
They start with a recording, often asking me to call a 800 number based offshore. Sometimes a "press 1" to speak to a CSR... which connects me to some sleazy outfit that contracts out the telemarketing, or so they claim. "Sir, we did not call you!". I have an idea. Make telemarketing, for anything (charities too) a crime punishable by prison time. Make it illegal for phone companies to not provide true caller id... not this shit they pass off as the same.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Keep in Mind... (Score:5, Informative)
Profit through annoying people (Score:5, Funny)
After giving this some careful thought I have been developing a marketting plan that will exploit other things that annoy people as a means of marketting.
Given that many of the most popular foods served in the U.S. often result in halitosis and/or flatulation (which are both annoyances) I have decided to develop this as a marketting scheme that not only benefits the hungry and homeless out there (an important public service) but also spreads the word about any given human consumable food or drink on the market, present and future.
My scheme, known as "Fartketting," consists of hiring low-cost employees and volunteers to consume only the food or drink of any given campaign and then either talk to people about it in close-in, poorly ventilated areas or simply emitting the natural effects of said products either in the form of flatulation or other gastric anomoly. This can be thought of as serving samples to the unsoliciting public.
I believe that if current marketting trends are effective, then this too should be an effective way of spreading the word about products and services to the public.
This method of marketting is currently patent pending, so don't get any wise ideas! This baby is ALL MINE!
Next list! (Score:2, Informative)
DO-NOT-USE-IE [donotcall.gov]
The damn form doesn't work unless you use IE. Fools!
- Kevin
"Supreme Court Backs Do-Not-Call List" ... WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
The Supreme Court has held in the past that a denial of cert is not in any way an endorsement of the appeals court's ruling. Only a small fraction of applications for cert are actually granted by the Court.
It is still possible that another lower court (outside of the 10th Circuit) could hold the Do-Not-Call List unconstitutional. Hopefully, any other court would find the 10th Circuit's opinion persuasive... but unless such a court is actually in the 10th Circuit, they are not required to follow the ruling.
Another point of interest (Score:5, Interesting)
I fixed my unwanted call problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Question on the do-not-call-list (Score:2)
What about companies you deal with? Case in point, my bank calls me *constantly* with BS deals for house loans, car loans, crap like that, can I tell them to FOAD?
Esp. now that the DNCL has been delared valid!
Re:Question on the do-not-call-list (Score:2, Informative)
Bravo for the Supreme Court... this time around. (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I'm delighted that the Supreme Court didn't accept that interpretation. Telemarketers demand your time in a more immediate fashion, and with some of them able to stay on the line until you've held the switch hook down for 10 seconds, they are far more capable of interfering with other communications than junk mail does with other correspondence.
I'm glad that the Supreme Court took that view - you see, the purpose of the Supreme Court is not necessarily to bow to the will of the people; its purpose is to see whether the balance of rights is maintained.
So, let's not get too carried away with what this decision means. The telemarketing companies may end up trying other ways to get around the "do-not-call" list.
We know what eternal vigilance pays for, after all.
It's easy to get around... (Score:2, Interesting)
It doesn't take a genius... (Score:2)
you misunderstand (Score:5, Informative)
I would submit to you that by the term free speech, the constitutional framers (and smart judges) interpreted to mean the free exchange and discourse of intellectual ideas between people and institutions, unrestrained by prior interference by the state.
People calling me to sell products is not exactly the free exchange of intellectual ideas -- they just want to hawk their wares. That's why the no-call list doesn't include political organizations, etc. which *are* in the business of discussing ideas with people.
This sounds like cert denied (Score:5, Informative)
That is different from the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal--very different. It does NOT mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court. They may, for instance, think that the issue needs more consideration in other lower courts before they take it.
And the rest (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK there is an interesting get-out for the telemarketers - while they cannot call to sell me something there is a provision that allows them to do market research. Now, every single call I get is from some company asking me if I were to replace my kitchen or bathroom etc, which would it be? This is not market research, it is just a slimey way around the legislation. Thankfully, it is rare that I get these calls compared with before I joined the telephone preference service but it is still annoying. Advertisers need to understand that I am making a definite decision to have nothing to do with them and they should just stay away. I would love to say "or else" but have no idea what the "else" would be.
My do-not-buy-from list (Score:3)
But telemarketers... you need to tell them you won't buy from them or join them or whatever. I've done this on a number of occasions. ``Look, I currently do xyzzy business with your company. If I ever get another unsolicited phone call from your company or a rep, I will never do business with you again. Is that clear? Please make sure this
In My Opinion (Score:2)
The clerk just hung up... (Score:3, Funny)
[Ring, ring]
Clerk: "Hello, Supreme Court clerk's office, Daron speaking"
Operator: "Hello sir, please don't hang up, but I would like to offer you a court case with a lot of free speach implications"
Clerk: "Uh, no than"
Operator: [Cutting him off] "This is a once-in-a-lifetime case that will only be valid for a limited time only. We will even though in an RIAA copyright case, absolutely free! That's two Supreme Court cases for the price of one."
Clerk: "No thank you, we already have enough court cases here. We don't need another."
[Click]
I like getting calls from telemarketers (Score:5, Interesting)
Last one I got was from Earthlink, trying to sell me high speed internet service. Some Indian guy who only spoke b+ level English tried to sell me something I already have:
Indian: Do you have a computer?
Me: (yelling) Dear, do we have a computer? (pause)
yes, we have a TRS-80. Will your Internet work with that?
Indian: What operating system do you use?
Me: Apple Basic.
Indian: Oh yes, no problem. Would you like out anti-virus, spam blocker, and popup blocker for $10 extra?
Me: No, I like SPAM(tm), it's great cooked. And I've already had my flu shot this year.
(After 10 minuets of this sort of sillyness)
Me:By the way, what is this 'Internet' thing you keep mentioning?
You can try to pick up telemarketers who call (guy or girl, doesn't really matter), act like an idiot, act interested and accidentally drop the phoe a lot, accuse the caller of racial slander, etc. This accomplishes two ends. You get to have a great time messing with people's heads and you waste their time, lowering the profitability of telemarketing overall. I *highly* reccomend it...
DNC DOS? (Score:4, Informative)
Pre-DNC list (Score:4, Insightful)
With the DNC list, no problems!
If the telemarketing industry wanted anyone to take the self-regulation claims seriously, they would have honored in spirit not just the letter of the old laws. Instead, they weaseled around it; "OK, you're on the do not call list for company X!" [2 minutes] "Hi! I'm calling from company Y!". I have no sympathy.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... (Score:4, Funny)
By their logic, I should be able to go cap a few telemarketers, and it would be legal because of my right to Bear Arms.
By their logic...
Eliza @ Phone (Score:3, Interesting)
An Eliza-like bot should do the trick - just responds to a bunch of key-phrases whenever the sales-guy stops talking and for the rest: the good old "Tell me more" should work just fine.
Just make sure the bot never responds with a definit "yes" or "no" but stays vague enough so "Mr. Sales" doesn't get his contract...
Re:FP! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:legislation vs judicial (Score:3, Insightful)
If they people don't like this, the recourse is to change the Constitution.
Re:legislation vs judicial (Score:3, Informative)
Er, no. The legislation in question was passed by Congress and signed by the President, just like the little flowchart in your Civics 101 textbook describes. The Court simply declined to listen to the telemarketers' claims that the law was unconstitutional (and, IMO, properly so, given the flimsiness of the "constitutional" argument).