Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Government The Courts

Will a US Supreme Court Ruling Put Net Neutrality at Risk? (msn.com) 192

Posted by EditorDavid from the here-comes-the-judge dept.
Today the Wall Street Journal reported that restoring net neutrality to America is "on shakier legal footing after a Supreme Court decision on Friday shifted power away from federal agencies." "It's hard to overstate the impact that this ruling could have on the regulatory landscape in the United States going forward," said Leah Malone, a lawyer at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. "This could really bind U.S. agencies in their efforts to write new rules." Now that [the "Chevron deference"] is gone, the Federal Communications Commission is expected to have a harder time reviving net neutrality — a set of policies barring internet-service providers from assigning priority to certain web traffic...

The Federal Communications Commission reclassified internet providers as public utilities under the Communications Act. There are pending court cases challenging the FCC's reinterpretation of that 1934 law, and the demise of Chevron deference heightens the odds of the agency losing in court, some legal experts said. "Chevron's thumb on the scale in favor of the agencies was crucial to their chances of success," said Geoffrey Manne, president of the International Center for Law and Economics. "Now that that's gone, their claims are significantly weaker."
Other federal agencies could also be affected, according to the article. The ruling could also make it harder for America's Environmental Protection Agency to crack down on power-plant pollution. And the Federal Trade Commission face more trouble in court defending its recent ban on noncompete agreements. Lawyer Daniel Jarcho tells the Journal that the Court's decision "will unquestionably lead to more litigation challenging federal agency actions, and more losses for federal agencies."

Friday a White House press secretary issued a statement calling the court's decision "deeply troubling," and arguing that the court had "decided in the favor of special interests".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will a US Supreme Court Ruling Put Net Neutrality at Risk? More

Will a US Supreme Court Ruling Put Net Neutrality at Risk?

Comments Filter:

  • how about TSA? (Score:5, Funny)

    by zeiche ( 81782 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @10:44PM (#64589161)

    i hope this can put a stop to TSA’s bullshit. would love to put a harness on that organization.

    • Re:how about TSA? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @12:12AM (#64589243)

      i hope this can put a stop to TSAâ(TM)s bullshit. would love to put a harness on that organization.

      I'd like to put a castration band on that organization.

      I read how the TSA operates. They don't care about catching dangerous items on aircraft because that's not how they are "scored" for performance. They are looking for the items their superiors put in the luggage to make sure they are paying attention. And they know what these things look like beforehand. These are people that work for the government performing searches and seizures but all but a handful of them are trained and certified law enforcement.

      I want the airlines and airports to be responsible for the security of the aircraft and travelers because it will be their necks, and aircraft, on the line if anything gets on the plane that should not be there. They won't be taking little toy hammers from (what's the politically correct term now?) mentally challenged people that carry them as a kind of "security blanket". They won't give a fuck about people carrying cash, or a small bottle of prescription drugs that maybe they should not have. They want passengers safe and happy, and if that means bending the rules a bit or turning a blind eye to a possible misdemeanor drug possession then that's what they are going to do. TSA loves to look for "crimes in progress" even if it has nothing to do with security of the aircraft, airport, or travelers.

      The TSA security theater actors have no more authority to arrest someone than a private citizen. They have no more authority to search than a private citizen. They can certainly alert real and actual law enforcement if something is up, just like a security drone working for an airline. The way some states operate they can get employees certified as a private police force, with as much authority to arrest as a city police officer. Will the TSA do that? I doubt it, but an airline might to make passengers feel safer. As police officers they still have "executive discretion" to turn a blind eye to minor crimes. With felonies they may be obligated to act, but I'm not sure on that.

      I doubt security staff hired by the airlines would be the petty little dictators that TSA has become. If they do that then people will just prefer airlines and airports that take security seriously than make theater out of it.

      A huge part of the problem is that TSA exists in the first place. Maybe we needed such an organization to be advisors, provide real law enforcement presence in airports (than this fake law enforcement they provide now), or maybe provide a last resort security force in some small airports that lack the means to train and employ their own security like they do most everywhere now. They should not be what they are and I hope this court case forces them to back off on the bullshit they've been up to.

      • It's a theatrical performance. In no time in US history have we funded the arts so heavily as we have in the production of this great pageantry for the American people.

    • Re:how about TSA? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @05:00AM (#64589501) Homepage Journal

      Given that the same SCOTUS decided that Border Patrol isn't accountable when it violates fourth Amendment rights (Egbert v. Boule). And not a peep out of justices over the constitutionality of the US Border Enforcement Zone. I'm guessing that the current make-up of the courts are against federal agencies, except in situations that supports the creation of new police powers out of nothing. To them the Constitution is a very important document and the basis of our law, except in those capaciously applied situations where police powers are more important. The courts are very pro police state and in clear support for the fascist agenda. But what do you expect from people who are not democratically elected, but selected by insiders.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 2TecTom ( 311314 )

      Who cares, any one country's machinations will just be rerouted by the global net

      control is an illusion ...

    • Re:how about TSA? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DewDude ( 537374 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @07:32AM (#64589689) Homepage

      No. If you pay close attention; the republicans only support federal law enforcement agencies when they're used against normal citizens to ensure control. Watch how closely they hypocritically choose which federal regulations they want removed and which ones they're currently fighting for. Watch how they scream about states rights and plans to defiantly ignore departments, while simultaneously claiming federal regulations prevent them from passing things.

      You think they're going to stop the TSA? The entire goddamn system was enacted by Republicans...under the guise of keeping us safe; the same way some republicans want to ban body cameras, police inquiries, and make their identities confidential; "because they're just doing their job to keep us safe and we need to make sure nothing hampers that."

      I mean the guy they're backing is crying about them weaponizing the government against him wants to retaliate by weaponizing the government against them.

  • Depends ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RossCWilliams ( 5513152 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @10:57PM (#64589173)
    The ruling appears to make any decision by an agency on the meaning of a stature subject to legal challenge in court. So the previous (and future) decisions against net neutrality would also be subject to challenge. This is really just another power grab by the Supreme Court to make themselves the final arbiter of almost any decision made by the other two branches of government. They can second guess executive decisions and they can reinterpret laws passed by congress to meet their own preferences. This is similar to the "corporations are persons" rule that allows the courts to intervene to protect the "rights" of corporations.

    • Re:Depends ... (Score:4, Informative)

      by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @11:14PM (#64589189)

      This is really just another power grab by the Supreme Court to make themselves the final arbiter of almost any decision made by the other two branches of government.

      Most federal regulatory cases are brought before arbiters run by the agencies themselves.

      You have the impact of the ruling all out of whack. Chevron simply meant that if there was ambiguity in the regulation *the federal agency itself wrote* that the courts should *automatically* defer to the federal agency. This deference came with a bunch of caveats, amongst them being the agency's position needs to be consistent, and they should later clarify the regulation.

      Over time, and as noted by the supreme court in this matter, the federal agencies interpretations of their own regulations have shifted, and they usually fail to update their regulations with clarifications.

      It's very simple. If a federal agency wants a regulation to work a particular way, they have to write it as such. If a company is getting away with something because a regulation isn't clear, they need to update the regulation, let everyone know of the regulation change, *then* go after the company.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 )

        "Most federal regulatory cases are brought before arbiters run by the agencies themselves."

        Probably not anymore. Assuming the same reasoning applied in the SEC case is applied these agencies will no longer be allowed to run their own private courts in lieu of real courts with real due process and juries.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 )

      They can second guess executive decisions and they can reinterpret laws passed by congress to meet their own preferences.

      I thought it was the courts job to "second guess" executive decisions and legislation.

      What's been a problem is that Congress writes a bad law, usually something that is too vague to enforce consistently, then the executive uses this as an opportunity to go well beyond the intentions of the law. What should happen in such a case is either Congress pulls back the executive by its oversight authority and fixes the law, or the courts look closely at what was written in law to see if the executive is complying.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        I thought it was the courts job to "second guess" executive decisions and legislation.

        Not if its decisions disagree with "my" politics. :-)

      • I thought it was the courts job to "second guess" executive decisions and legislation.

        Yes, but when the elected courts "second guess" decisions by legislators to defer to expert regulators, then it becomes a problem. I prefer my life to be in the hands of people who know what the fuck they are doing rather than voters pissed off that they can't get a nice colour of red on their house because some regulator decided lead paint is bad.

        For every idiot here talking about some silly stupid regulatory decision, remember this ruling also applies to agencies like the FDA. No I don't want courts decid

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jmccue ( 834797 )

          It is far worse that that. We will be heading straight into "Salmonellaville". Without enforcement at food processing plants and for Organic Food places, we could very well see a big up take in Salmonella.

          The only good thing about this is it will affect Congress people and the Supreme Court Justices equally as us.

        • If there's a problem with existing laws Congress can take feedback or input from experts in the executive branches agencies or elsewhere and amend the laws based on that. If Congress can't agree that it should be a law in the first place, then why should some unelected bureaucracy (which may suffer from regulatory capture and be regulating against your interests at the expense of special parties) have no only the ability to make up the rules, but also the final say in interpreting them? That violates the fu

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      "This is really just another power grab by the Supreme Court to make themselves the final arbiter of almost any decision made by the other two branches of government."

      Arbiter...

      "What is a synonym for the word arbiter?
      judge
      arbiter (noun as in person who settles dispute) Strongest matches. arbitrator go-between mediator moderator referee. Strong matches. adjudicator fixer holdout judge maven umpire."

      Silly supreme court, suggesting that judging the law should be done by the judicial per the separation of power

    • This is really just another power grab by the Supreme Court to make themselves the final arbiter of almost any decision made by the other two branches of government.

      Yes, we can't have the courts "grabbing the power" to, er, resolve legal disputes!

      They can second guess executive decisions and they can reinterpret laws passed by congress to meet their own preferences.

      Yes, they can ... and have ... like with the prime example of "emanations and penumbras" to whip up an imaginary right to abortion.

      That's why you have to appoint judges who actually want to enforce law, not preferences.

      • No, its not their job. Their job is to manage a legal system that enforces the laws adopted by elected representatives. They aren't supposed to be substituting their personal political judgments for those people elected to make those judgments as our tools for maintaining a self-governing democracy. And historically the courts over-stepping those boundaries has lead to disastrous results.

    • "This is really just another power grab by the Supreme Court to make themselves the final arbiter of almost any decision made by the other two branches of government. "

      Jesus fucking Christ man, maybe TRY reading the constitution before commenting on civics.

      That is - literally - their role in government as laid out in the constitution.

  • "Put Net Neutrality at Risk?" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So what if it does? It's a good ruling. It wouldn't be an issue if we put the squeeze on congress to do its job (too bad the moderators don't seem to agree). We shouldn't depend on an unelected bureaucrat that serves the whims of the president to write law. I hope they take a closer look at the IRS and DEA also

    • What about judges who serve the whims of a president?

      eg. Judge Cannon.

      Should she be making decisions on food additives and industrial pollutants?

  • That depends (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday June 29, 2024 @11:35PM (#64589203)

    Who can supply the largest gratuity to the justices? They just ruled it being legal.

  • When I read the news coming from America, it looks like the rule of law is faltering, maybe even failing. Precedence being over thrown, lack of respect for judges... both sides of the political spectrum talking about weaponised or weaponising the judicial department.

    Perhaps, it's just because America is a much bigger place than where I am from.. and it's easier to find news that bleeds...

    • Corruption is the real cause here.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by loonycyborg ( 1262242 )
        Corruption is subjective. The society is polarized so much that people on particular side are willing to see corruption in pretty much anything that could potentially benefit the other side.

    • Re:As a Foriegner (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @01:27AM (#64589309)

      The court has a lot of autonomy to keep them free of political strings and pressures. Part of the country wants the court to rule according to the outcomes they think ought to be and find justifications in the law to support those positions. Those folks have gotten their way on some major issues for quite some time. Consequently there are not only some big decisions that have gone that way but a lot built on top of them.

      Now a pack of conservative judges who don't give a fig about the outcome just the coherence and integrity of the law, top down are overturning the past decisions which aren't really Constitutional and it is upsetting the previously happy folks and suddenly they are made the court is free of political pressure.

      This one topples the cart of an entire secondary state of unelected administrators in government offices and all the laws they've invented without the legislature's input for the last 40yrs. There is stuff in there that anyone would like and anyone would dislike but it is all illegal.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DewDude ( 537374 )

        No. Because the reality is many of them specifically took the stance in the past that such drastic changes would not be good; and some of them even said the past decisions of the court needed to be respected.

        Moscow Mitch was practically fucking crying begging to let "whoever becomes the next president" to pick the next justice due to it happening so close to election. IIRC they didn't have the power to stop...so he begged like a fucking child.

        4 years later...when they do have the power...there's no respect.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          "many of them specifically took the stance in the past that such drastic changes would not be good"

          And there you have it, an admission that SCOTUS lacked the courage and integrity to rule according to law in the past and this SCOTUS is doing so. This is what they should have done all along, if it broke something then it is up to the legislative process to fix it. The only reason SCOTUS should nudge the outcome is toward the intent [and I mean the public sales pitch intent] of the law on a temporary basis to

      • >This one topples the cart of an entire secondary state of unelected administrators in government offices and all the laws they've invented without the legislature's input for the last 40yrs.

        Ah yes, "make sure congress passes laws with specific duties".

        Like saying "Make this government led branch of ___, and appoint experts to oversee ___ to protect ___ as much as much as possible."

        Oh wait, we can't have THAT, Congress has to tell them exactly what to do, even though the bodies are doing EXACTLY what con

    • What the court actually did, was require due process when penalties are assessed. It essentially said that a government agency can't both make and enforce rules, and be its own court when doling out fines. They can't both interpret the law and be their own judge enforcing that interpretation. To me, this seems like a strengthening of the rule of law, not weakening.

  • Stop drinking the media koolaid. (Score:5, Informative)

    by passionplay ( 607862 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @12:02AM (#64589233)

    Chevron says that I as an agency policy maker say that statute 1.2.3.4 from Congress says that hair color should be normal and I as an agency policy maker take that statute to mean that your cannot have blue hair on Tuesdays, I'm free to do so and no one can challenge outside of the Supreme court because it could only be challenged on Constitutional grouns. Because Congress did not make it super clear and I, as an agency expert, am the final authority on the matter unless it violates the constition. If a challenge does come up, the issue will go to the very first court (not even the supreme court) and then come right back to the agency arbiter on MY payroll until it gets appealed as unconstitutional. So the verifier and the producer of the work are one and the same. Please note, this has nothing to do with the supreme court - just courts in general.

    Now that Chevron has been put aside, what happens that the challenge goes to the first level of court who decides IF they can decide the matter. If they do, and the decision is not the one wanted by either party, it can be escalated up the court system of appeals (more than one) until after a few additional levels of review where it has to be decided one way or the other, it may FINALLY reach the supreme court. And at each step of the way, the individual courts may say the decision is unchanged. INCLUDING the supreme court.

    To make the removal of Chevron out to be a removal of all checks and balances disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. There are so many steps in between. And not all of them are even conservative or democrat to begin with. Why people have to conflate a "you can't verify your own work" into "the supreme court will decide everything" is completely bonkers. It just means you have not educated yourself on what Chevron is and what it did.

    Here's an example: The AGENCY has changed numerous definitions of their rules back and forth each time a new administration comes into power. But the statute applied does not change. The Chevron doctrine allowed the AGENCY to pretty much do what they wanted unless the courts decided the rule was unconstitutional, when challenged at which point it would eventually end up with the Supreme court. With Chevron gone, the lower courts can:

    1. a) decide whether the interpretation is valid and not the AGENCY,
    2. b) decide whether the matter needs to go back to congress for clarification.
    3. c) choose to not rule at all and let the matter stand.

    Then everything repeats at each higher court.

    Note, there is no quid pro quo and not even a guarantee that a matter will go the Supreme court for the so-called "kickbacks." Essentially, removing Chevron allows the judiciary to be judicious instead of letting the AGENCY be the judiciary for regulations/rules. And if the judiciary does not want to rule, instead of allowing the AGENCY to legislate, the judiciary will now allow Congrress to legislate, as it should have always been.

    See? No bogey man here. Stop drinking the media koolaid.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GFS666 ( 6452674 )
      This. I wish I had mod points. The Chevron Decision has been used by Presidential Administrations in both parties (Republican Administrations used it heavily early on) and Congress to basically be lazy. It's one of these "well, we didn't write the law that way but you (the courts) should interpret it the way we want". Listen, I don't like some of the short term effects of this decision because, as noted, the Admins and Congress have been allowed to be lazy but the long term effects will be good with laws a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      "To make the removal of Chevron out to be a removal of all checks and balances disingenuous at best and a lie at worst."

      If anything it is the opposite. The Chevron deference amounted to the courts shirking most of their duty to act as a check and balance on these agencies.

      If congress disagrees with the court's interpretation they can simply change/clarify the law as it pertains to blue hair, hair color, etc. This is why so many are upset imho, they KNOW much of what their favorite agency is doing [especiall

      • The people on this post are claiming removing Chevron is causing "a removal of all checks and balances." Removal of Chevron does the opposite. I agree - the courts have been lazy. I already said it allowed to the courts to return the issue back to the agency.

    • Congress did legislate.

      Part of that legislation was delegating certain tasks to eh agencies, because Congress can't be bogged down in setting standards and regulations for every pollutant or chemical or whatever. Congress aren't experts or have an understanding of the science. That's why they set up the agencies, with the experts to do that for them.

      Or do you want MTG, or Boebert or Trump deciding what chemicals are safe to be in water? Because that's what will happen now. The megacorps will have a field d

    • This will run straight into the problem of judge-shopping. Your example of hair color is actually pretty good. Congress passes a law saying hair color must be natural. Somebody sues because the law doesnt specify that my hair cant be blue on tuesday. In a rational world, without Chevron, the judge throws the case out in 30 seconds, because this is droolingly-stupid and stop wasting the court’s time. But, the plaintiff shops around for some liberal leftwing judge in California who rules in their favor,
    • Lets be clear, Chevron did not give agencies carte blanch to interpret laws or that those interpretations could not be challenged in court. It said the standard courts should use in considering those challenges is to defer to the agency if it was a reasonable interpretation. Now the courts are supposed to determine whether it was the "correct" interpretation. But lets be clear. The courts serve the wealthy and powerful. They are really the only ones that have access. If some middle class homeowner decides

  • The Law (Score:4, Informative)

    by The Cat ( 19816 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @12:27AM (#64589255)

    Congress writes the rules. The executive enforces them. The judicial interprets them. Anything else violates the separation of powers.

    The purpose of separating powers is to prevent those powers from concentrating in too few hands, which perfectly describes what's been happening for the last oh, sixty-odd years at the federal level.

    This of course leaves aside the fact that executive agencies are not answerable to voters, which violates even more fundamental principles.

    The people of the United States delegate limited authority to government to carry out a strictly defined set of enumerated powers. Nowhere did the people grant the executive the authority to "write rules."

    This Supreme Court ruling was spot on.

    • Re:The Law (Score:5, Interesting)

      by codebase7 ( 9682010 ) on Sunday June 30, 2024 @01:33AM (#64589315)

      Nowhere did the people grant the executive the authority to "write rules."

      Yes they did. Quote Article I Section 8 [cornell.edu]:

      To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

      The purpose of federal agencies is to assist Congress in managing Congress' responsibilities. To that extent, Congress delegated certain powers to them, through legislation, including the ability to "write rules." Those rules are subject to the Congressional Review Act [gao.gov], another piece of legislation that allows Congress to have the final say on said agencies rule making. Including but not limited to, repealing the rule outright.

      Congress has every ability to reign in rules made by their agencies. That Congress choose not to is a subject to hold your elected representatives accountable for, not for an unelected judge to rule against in a blatant violation of Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold.

      • The judge is elected. And is not given the right to legislate. Only to decide if the rule makes sense in the context of the statute - to INTERPRET. Judges are elected. Justices are appointed. But the justices don't see this thing until all the lower courts have had a go. Removing Chevron prevents the lower courts from abdicating their responsibility. That's it. It doesn't change what the justices are allowed to do.
      • Sure, and courts are how people seek redress for unconstitutional laws, what's your point? All this means is they can't make up unchallenged rules just because they said so. One of the checks and balances is the time it takes congress to act, the founding fathers debating that point explicitly at length within that context, the legislative branch was never meant to have that extension of power, and the executive certainly wasn't - the reason we have the problems we have as a society is because the governm

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by The Cat ( 19816 )

        Yes they did. Quote Article I Section 8

        Article I governs Congress. The laws pertaining to the executive branch are in Article II.

        The purpose of federal agencies is to assist Congress in managing Congress' responsibilities.

        Federal agencies operate under the authority of the executive branch. Their purpose is to enforce the laws. Anything beyond that violates the separation of powers.

        not for an unelected judge to rule against in a blatant violation of Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold.

        Congress has a remedy if they believe a judge has ruled in error. They can pass new legislation, or they can impeach the judge. They don't get to delegate lawmaking power to a group of unelected nameless bureaucrats.

    • Congress writes the rules. The executive enforces them. The judicial interprets them. Anything else violates the separation of powers.

      The rules congress made and the executive enforced delegates specific tasks to regulators. That isn't a violation of separation of powers, that is an exercise of them.

      This Supreme Court ruling was spot on.

      If you want a bunch of lawyers with their law degress determining if lead paint is safe for you to inhale then yes the supreme court is spot on. Most western countries have separation of powers as well, and most western countries release that elected politicians and lawyers aren't in the position to decide on most matters of science.

      This is wh

  • Friday a White House press secretary issued a statement calling the court's decision "deeply troubling," and arguing that the court had "decided in the favor of special interests".

    The court decided in favor of elected representatives who at least could be held accountable by the people at election time, and against unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no one other than their personal special interest. This ruling says nothing other than courts do not have to defer to regulators if the law is not clear. So Congress needs to be clear, open, in their delegation of authority to the bureaucrats.

    They did NOT say Congress could not delegate authority, they did NOT say regulators

    • The court decided in favor of elected representatives who at least could be held accountable by the people at election time, and against unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no one other than their personal special interest.

      You say that as if it's a good thing. Do you want elected representatives backed by their law degrees and influenced by the almighty power of lobbyists to decide if you should be ingesting lead? Should your local representative be determining the safe cooking level for your restaurants to prevent food poisoning? And if they make a decision keeping you healthy and extending the quality of your life should it arbitrarily be at the whim of the "other side" which constantly trade blows every 4 years at election

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        The court decided in favor of elected representatives who at least could be held accountable by the people at election time, and against unelected bureaucrats who are accountable to no one other than their personal special interest.

        You say that as if it's a good thing. Do you want elected representatives backed by their law degrees and influenced by the almighty power of lobbyists to decide if you should be ingesting lead?

        Congress merely needs to clearly give the EPA authority for such regulations.

        Should your local representative be determining the safe cooking level for your restaurants to prevent food poisoning?

        Congress merely needs to clearly give the EPA authority for such regulations.

        And if they make a decision keeping you healthy and extending the quality of your life should it arbitrarily be at the whim of the "other side" which constantly trade blows every 4 years at election time?

        No such thing is happening here. No particular regulation is being struck down on its regulator merit. It is merely the case that Congress must be clear in granting authority. That when there is a lack of clarity, it is for Courts to decide the intent of Congress not a bureaucrat. Such review and interpretations is the realm of the Courts, Congress has no

    • The fine quote also omits the fact the government is also a special interest.

      So it's really an arbitration between conflicting special interests.

      • The fine quote also omits the fact the government is also a special interest. So it's really an arbitration between conflicting special interests.

        Its also about separation of powers. It is the courts that interpret the intent of Congress if legislation is unclear. Congress can not delegate that role to bureaucrats.

  • Supreme Court has only a Republican agenda, today. If another civil war starts, it will be a trigger point, either way.
  • ...capitalistic enough. They need to not only be monopolies but also be gatekeepers for what people can reasonably access. You want to reach your audience? OK, you pay us.

    Not happy with only regulatory & electoral capture, corporations & billionaires have paid & lobbied to have judges put in place & have cultivated "relationships" with some of them. That's what happens when you let a small number of electorally unaccountable organisations & individuals amass obscene amounts of wealth.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      The society that created the most prosperous form of human existence ever is the most awful thing ever. We need a revolution so we can reach akshual utopia!

      (No past attempts at building this utopia count as real revolutions. It will be different this time. Don't think about it too much, here's a picture of fluffy bunny to distract you).

      • Akshully, the British Empire created a system so profitable that it took over large areas of the world to plunder their labour & resources. It worked incredibly well. Colonised what are now the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia, & New Zealand. It doesn't get more "successful" than that.

        Sorry, what was your point?
    • The United States is not a "social democracy" ... never has been ... even our "original sin" slavery. We are a constitutional republic , with government powers strictly limited by explicit constitutional statue both at the federal and state levels. Basically the federals are appointed to control the borders and conserve the currency. Personal happiness and well-being is the purview of individual citizens and freely established contracts among those citizens. Now me, with
      • I love it when True 'Muricans(TM) get all riled when you point out that they live in a political system with the word "social" in it. =D

  • It's almost like in a typical Western state, legislator is supposed to legislate.

    It's almost like having Chevron deference caused certain nation's legislator to abandon large share of its duties to the unaccountable bureaucracy.

    It's almost like it's time for Congress to get off its fat ass and actually legislate net neutrality, as is done in much of Western World.

    • How do they legislate on topics they have no knowledge of?

      Do you really want politicians deciding what levels of chemicals are ok in water? Or safety standards for buildings? Or regulations around nuclear power plants?

      They will have no clue. They would need experts on all the various fields to consult and have them draw up regulations.

      Perhaps Congress could set up an agency (or agencies), and staff it with experts, and do that for them?

      OH WAIT. That's exactly what Congress did when it passed legislation to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

        The answer is yes to all of those things.

        You objections come from utter ignorance of reality of legislative processes. It's completely correct to note that legislators don't write legislation on high level, but merely set guilde lines for it and then approve the final product. Legislative bureaucracy under the lead of legislators writes legislation based on requirements set by legislators. The duty of an elected legislator in a Western society is that which you declared your vehement opposition to above. To

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          >Because we understand from our history that not keeping people vested with power to execute actions in the name of the sovereign is how you get tyranny.

          This statement should be: "Because we understand from our history that not keeping people vested with power to execute actions in the name of the sovereign in check is how you get tyranny."

          Should be understandable from the context, but people who make a point of not understanding the context because they are not debating but playing power games with word

  • I mean, it's thoughtful of the Dems to want to make sure that Trump has plenty of power in his second term, but ...
  • It will also make it easier to challenge regulations businesses lobby for.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close