Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court To Wipe Out Decision Upholding Net Neutrality (hollywoodreporter.com) 192
Repealing net neutrality wasn't enough for the Trump administration. Today, the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a 2016 appeal court ruling that had upheld Obama era net neutrality rules that barred ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content. Reuters reports: The request was made even though the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to toss out the 2015 rules late last year, rendering the fight over their legality moot. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said the question for the court was "whether the now-superseded 2015 order was invalid because it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate public notice, or violated the First Amendment."
He'll get it too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As the saying goes, Elections have consequences. America continues to choose candidates who oppose government regulation and favor leaving things up to the markets oligarchs.
There, FTFY. The "free market" is a myth in the USA. On the one hand, you have restrictions such as patents which locked out competitors to Amazon and Microsoft so there was no market in simple shopping or pre-installed operating systems. On the other hand, where clear information is needed, the entire US mass media has been controlled by Oligarchs such as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch who have much more in common with each-other than with any of their consumers. The US public is so brainwashed that the
Re: (Score:1)
A 'free market' is a myth in the modern world, anyway - the foundation of any and all markets today is the ownership of useful land, which is NOT free, nor infinite. For that to effectively change, a LOT of people would have to die... (Communism just changes the nature of ownership, not the market forces it causes.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government (U.S.) owns enough land to give each citizen several acres. The free market doesnt exist because the governments power continues to trump it. The answer isnt giving the government more power, because that too will be used for the cronies.
The federal government (U.S.) owns enough land to give each citizen several acres.
Well that's just great.
I mean I grew up believing the government owed me 40 acres and a mule and now we're down to "several acres" and no mention of any mule.
Has the whole world gone mad?
I'll settle for a 1/4 acre plot and a Kia. Is that too much to ask?
Where's my mule?
Where's my 40 acres?
To live this away, might as well meet my maker.
Where's my mule?
Re: (Score:2)
the current Supreme Court is stacked against government regulation of any kind. That is by design.
I'm not so sure about that. Generally it seems the SCOTUS tries to find a reason to uphold what Congress decides, except when it doesn't. And generally it doesn't when it thinks something is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
America continues to choose candidates who oppose government regulation and favor leaving things up to the markets.
The democratic party seems to have the centrists and the more left people, while the republican party has the right, and the far right, and well Donald Trump, who seems to mostly be about worship of Donald Trump.
The last election had people:
1. Angry and wanting to vote someone in who was angry at the same people they were angry at. They have been told to be angry at the democrats/clintons/etc for some time. Trump's whole birthirism spiel was just a gigantic fan for the flames of prejudice. "This one is o
Re: (Score:1)
Hillary Clinton collaborated with the democratic party to try to rig the primary. Okay, she denies active collusion, even though they were systematically funneling money from state funds to
Re: (Score:2)
The credibility of CNN is on par with Fox News these days, which is very sad. Gone are the days where very credible sounding straw men for right/conservative sides of the coin are presented alongside solid reasoning for left spin corporatism (as opposed to fox right spin corporatism) in order to make the better educated believe they were presented reasonably unbiased information and reached their own conclusion.
Now it isn't much different than Fox, everythi
LGBT and non-Christian religions BLOCKED! #MAGA (Score:1)
Combined with Sessions religious liberty finally we will be the Christian State that real Americans knew we should always be. Degeneracy will no longer be allowed in America! #MAGA
Re: (Score:1)
Yes that's what free markets are, free for the rich who already control everything to increase or maintain their control.
Re: He'll get it too (Score:1)
Comcast tells Trump Administration To Tell Supreme Court To Wipe Out Decision Upholding Net Neutrality
-FTFY
Re: He'll get it too (Score:1)
Here we have a believer in the Immaculate Conviction.
No sorry, when the law itself is wrong, (slavery, prohibition, pot, family separation, etc), you not only have a right. it a duty to break it.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the word "considered".
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't possibly be they only think that because we basically only have a right-of-center and extreme-right party.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just living up to his sig - "often wrong but never in doubt".
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention Tony Blair.
Re: (Score:2)
The R's make sense to people like you and people in small towns because the "free market" and trickle down ideas alongside the damage costs of regulation cause can be seen and are very pronounced there. Logically it seems like the same thing shoul
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said the question for the court was "whether the now-superseded 2015 order was invalid because it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate public notice, or violated the First Amendment."
Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would they go to the Supreme Court? Congress dictates the authority of the FCC. Also, the courts alreay ruled the FCC did have the authority
Re: (Score:2)
Because, whether or not the FCC exceeded the authority given to it by Congress, is up to the Court to decide.
Independently, Congress may choose to give it additional authority or strip some. But this will only affect validity of future FCC actions.
Re: (Score:3)
The telecoms are fighting furiously to contain the newly found grip, and additionally get those pesky states who've passed neutrality laws to just go away and leave them alone.
This is a battle with telecom $$ campaign contributions and therefore funded US Justice Dept goading the SCOTUS to see it their way (that is, their friends, the telecoms), and pay back their benefactors, 'cause this sure isn't going to benefit the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2)
Your rant has nothing relevant to the GP's question: why is the Court, rather than Congress, asked to decide on whether FCC exceeded its authority before.
Re: (Score:2)
The telecoms, through their proxy-- the administration-- are fighting this, NOT CONGRESS. Several individual states have created their own net neutrality statutes, some of which are pretty lame, but an attempt, nonetheless-- something that Congress (also plentifully funded with campaign contributions from telcos) has also failed to surmount.
Follow the money. The money is spent by telcos, and it's not for consumers, it's for plentiful returns to stockholders and Wall Street. Follow the money. The Executive
Re: (Score:2)
Congress can reverse any regulation at whim. Haha they won't because theh are largely cowards.
But there was a recent case where someone tried to stop such an action by Congress claiming they didn't follow some regulatory administrative procedures, and the court slapped it right down because Congress doesn't have to.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite a "whim." In general, Congress would need to pass legislation, and the President would have to sign it. That isn't trivial in our system (though there is an easier process for very recent rules).
Re: (Score:2)
Congress hadn't envisioned such a massive chunk of the economy to be pulled under regulatory control when it didn't exist at the time.
That's all some ask, regardless of the proposed value of the control. Regulators should not do it without express Congressional instruction.
Having said that, Congress has gotten its wish to hide from the political fallout of such things by turning all lawmaking over to the executive branch.
They do very little other than hide political favors in giant omnibus bills for millio
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be silly. The purpose of an FCC is to make a variety of rules in a timely fashion for a public purpose, without the cumbersome (and often contentious) process of partisan lawmaking. The public purpose (improving communication) is why the Constitution put
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they're thinking very hard about it.
The question is are we talking about the value to consumers, to the public as a whole, or to the telcos?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.
Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat" President from simply reinstating the same rules by fiat. If the FCC can point to a SCOTUS decision that said they shouldn't have created rules outside their scope of authority when President Next issues his Executive Order putting them back, then we can avoid the executive branch politicization of this legislative branch football.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This is what I was alluding to.
Username (Score:1)
checks out.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say, did you know that Donald Trump has signed more executive orders in the first 20 months of his presidency that Barack Obama did in his first two years?
If you don't like "rule by fiat", then you should really be uncomfortable with the degenerate Trump regime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many of the same people continue to be upset by it, even if we enjoy the laments by some who liked it under Obama in the shoe is on the other foot aspect of it.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
They sure are quiet about their disapproval. Who are these mythological Republicans who are now uncomfortable with Trump's rule by fiat?
Re: (Score:1)
Jeff Flake, John McCain, Ben Sasse, the two Koch brothers, none of whom seem mythical.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Three retiring senators that are hated by their own party and a pair of oligarchs.
It's not a very robust group of resisters to the Trump regime from the conservative sphere, now is it? I'd be more impressed if you could name someone who was actually running for re-election.
Re: (Score:2)
That's trickier. They're all cowards if they're running for reelection. They act as if this is their only career possibility, probably they lack real world skills, so they'll kiss whatever is necessary to keep the job. Most think that it's more important to show party unity than to stand by their ideals or use their brain. This applies to most parties not just the one.
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't even party unity (or ideological unity). It's merely fealty to a degenerate bully, because secretly, being a Republican means yearning to be dominated by a daddy. That's why Putin is so popular.
Re: (Score:1)
And what is being a Democrat? [wordpress.com]
They only hate the tarrifs. (Score:1)
But all the other shit? Including the new tax breaks? They LOVE that. Not one hates the executive order stream.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Trumpers are both unacquainted with reality and unencumbered by shame. Theirs is a world where a tan suit is outrageous but orphaned and sexually abused children are no biggie.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter the number. What matters is the substance and what the executive order does. If it bypasses Congress to do something the President wants that Congress has refused to work with then that is an overreach of executive authority. That is very different than a proclamation of intent. If a E.O. undo past executive overreach than I don't see it as big as an issue than the original E.O. being undone.
I hope you can tell the difference. Bypassing congress bad. Working within Constitutional Executive
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Barack Obama signed over 275 executive orders. Nine of them got overturned. So, it looks like he was good at Constitutional Executive Authority.
I have to ask though, do you believe a president has the "Constitutional Executive authority" to declare a $100 billion tax cut?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Say, did you know that Donald Trump has signed more executive orders in the first 20 months of his presidency that Barack Obama did in his first two years?
If you don't like "rule by fiat", then you should really be uncomfortable with the degenerate Trump regime.
Wow
20 months vs 2 years ? Any reason you felt the need to change units there ? 20 months vs 24 makes it much easier to see the difference. Though it doesn't sound nearly as impressive.
Gotta ask before you posted that did you do any checking about the nature of the EOs ? I mean just how many were undoing previous EOs ?
Seems this would important to make the point you are trying to unless you are just looking to troll.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You may be right. I should not have assumed that Trump supporters could figure out that 20 months is less than 2 years.
And the reason I changed units is because Trump hasn't been president for two years yet, but Obama was president for eight. Trump's time in office is often spoken of in terms of months and Obama's is only spoken of in years. I suppose I could have said,
Re: (Score:2)
oh don't be so numerically challenged.
1 2/3 years vs 2 years
or given that you're young
1.66 years vs 2 years
But then again seeing as you are picking this up from what other people have to say
Trump's time in office is often spoken of in terms of months and Obama's is only spoken of in years
Expecting a considered and meaningful opinion may be a bit much.
BTW Apropos of nothing "Animal Farm" is a good read especially the sheep
Re: (Score:3)
That's because Obama preferred the use of Presidential Memos instead of EOs and despite having the same legal authority of an EO (though few of the reporting requirements) the press and the "fact checkers" who have the research ability of a squirrel with ADD when it comes to digging into anything Obama related, made sure to only counts EOs when any question of his use of the 'phone and pen' were questioned.
Obama in 2 years: EOs = 74, PMs = 139
Trump in 20 months: EOs 76, PMs = 42
And just for comparison:
Obama
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I know that. You know that. We all know that it was all about skin color.
Oh, and by the way, DACA is back in business.
http://www.sandiegouniontribun... [sandiegouniontribune.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Fixed that for you. Obama signed 276 EO's. With only 9 overturned by a stacked conservative court, i'd say that's pretty damn good. And yes, it was all about him doing things by EO's, unless of course, you think that all the republicans saying exactly that were lying for 8 years when they said it.
That doesn't seem a crazy number, though undoubtedly he grew frustrated at the lack of action by congress and pushed things a little. I don't think he was too out of line, but a little sure. Basically you had a congress that was pretty useless save for the first couple years, and he tried to get things done anyway. Each branch can work around the others failing, but only to a limited extent.
I think it is appropriate for the supreme court to take up any controversial case, I just wish we had a better staf
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And to be even more correct, a number of Obama's EO's were drafted and signed AFTER republicans told him to go ahead and do it
Re: (Score:2)
But it's ok for the next conservative "rule by fiat" president? The problem with this sort of politics is that the tools you use to hold back the opposition party will inevitably be used to hold your party back in the future. The parties need to stop acting like they're in a war against each other and start working together for the people instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really....The goverment is arguing the issue is moot. That is, none of this matters because the rule no longer exists.
For what it's worth, this also goes to the court's power. One of the important limits on the judicial power is that it can only decide actual cases i.e., the outcome would matter to someone.
USA. Now officially a dictatorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying.
So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying.
So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".
yeah okay
See, that right there is the same smug and complacent attitude that led to Auschwitz, Sobibór, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Gross-Rosen, Neuengamme, ... but don't let those examples stop you from travelling down that road again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You still don't get it. Those examples are their goal.
Re: USA. Now officially a dictatorship? (Score:2)
It is not fear mongering when it is observable facts. Trump is retarded Hitler an ill Duché
Re: Have fun with your fascist regime then. (Score:1)
Booming? I'll believe that when wages go up at the rate of inflation.
Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
Authoritarianism can work on anybody. Anybody. All it takes is the following:
1. Make the population afraid, angry, or confused about something.
2. Present yourself as the only way to solve the problem.
Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship? (Score:5, Informative)
They filed an appeal to an ongoing court cause which they are a party to. This is bog-standard lawyering.
How does that have anything to do with dictatorship, or dictating anything?
At most, the Supreme Court might decide to take the appeal and dictate an opinion to give their results.
Re: (Score:3)
Because of a shitty headline. Hell, even TFS says *ASKED*.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a moot case, the "most" they would do is point that out when declining to take it up.
There are only two possible results; The Supreme Court says no with a reason, or they say no without a reason.
It doesn't matter if it would bring clarity to the world to issue a ruling. That isn't how the SCOTUS rolls. The absurdity of this just shows that President Trump has the lawyers completely browbeaten to the point that they'll do crass and unprofessional things with no chance of success, in order to keep their
Re: (Score:2)
his kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship
There are multiple paths that lead back to feudalism and while everything you said is spot-on, it should be mentioned that, on average, you guys are quite a bit farther down your path than we are ours.
Re: (Score:3)
This particular move isn't dictatorship yet. He's asking, not telling. If he instructed them to do so, that would be dictatorship. If they tell him no, and he has some of them imprisoned or killed, that'll be dictatorship.
With that said, every time Trump says Fake News, I hear Hitler say Lugenpresse
Re: (Score:3)
Theoretically, this can be reset in no more than 6 and a half years.
Of course, what's left of the country by that point may not be worth resetting.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Trump wasn't joking when he praised China's President as follows: "He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely don't think Trump stands a realistic chance of becoming President For Life - not without tossing our Constitution out the window which would hopefully result in a huge march on D.C. However, the very fact that he jokes about it like that is concerning. Words matter, especially when you're President of the United States.
Re: (Score:1)
It is sad to see the US has fallen so low, but it is the truth. This brief experiment in fascism with obesity failed yet leaves damage. Even when Trump is removed and spirited away to Moscow for safe keeping, the systemic damage (which was Putin's goal) remains.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying.
So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".
He filed an appeal in a court case.
Do get a grip.
Re: (Score:2)
The US federal government got a lot of NN rules under one government to enforce the way it wanted NN to work politically.
The next US government can change the same federal rules.
Re: (Score:2)
USA. Now officially a dictatorship?
No. But we DO have a problem with unhinged headline writers using phrases like "Trump administration tells Supreme Court ..." (emphasis mine) in order to make it sound like that's what happened, because that sounds scary and dictatorial. Even the summary corrects the headline (to "asks"), but too many phony hand-wringing screechers will never get past the headline because they know that if they do, it will take the fun out of their narrative.
If asking a court to revisit some issue makes an administrat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it does. Making an argument in court is the polar opposite of "dictating."
Re:Democracy IS tyranny (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence why a exceptionally good education system is necessary for a democracy to endure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hence why a exceptionally good education system is necessary for a democracy to endure.
Educational levels are irrelevant when discussing the fact that pure democracies are a tyranny of the 51% over the 49%.
It's not any lack of education, it's base human nature that is the fly in the ointment of a direct democracy.
Those who seriously promote/push the idea of a direct democracy are either woefully under-educated themselves, or they have an ulterior political/ideological motive like social/political disruption of the sort the Russians have been in the news for recently.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
It's not any lack of education, it's base human nature that is the fly in the ointment of a direct democracy.
I should have added that both socialism and communism also fail for the same reason...base human nature. Both socialism and communism are authoritarian by their very nature. Most major life decisions are made by those in power...where you work and at what sort of job, what kind and level of education you receive, where you'll live, how much you will earn, how much food you receive, even how many children you may have.
Anytime you put people in authority over others without unavoidable and direct consequences
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why a exceptionally good education system is necessary for a democracy to endure.
Trouble is, what looks like a good system to one set of jokers looks terrible to the other set of clowns, and visa versa.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If he refuses to go peacefully,
I thought that was why Americans have the right to bear arms.
This is to stop the widespread sleep deprivation (Score:2)
... assuming repealing Net Neutrality will lead to less high speed internet use, which is not at all certain.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask / Tell (Score:2, Interesting)
A little editorial work done on the title of the post.
The title and the first line of the linked article: "Trump administration asks Supreme Court "
Title on Slashdot: "Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court "
That one-word change is a big difference, suggesting one branch of the gov't telling the other what to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's BeauHD, certified piece of shit.
That's odd... (Score:1)
What ever happened to separation of powers between the three branches of government?
Sometimes, I think the White House stocks toilet paper with text of the Constitution printed on it, for the president's private use.
Re: (Score:3)
What specific event or action has lead you to believe, the Separation is threatened in any way?..
Re: (Score:2)
Use of a comma that is so bad that, Oxford-wise, it isn't even wrong.
Arguing grammar (Score:2)
Until you, English-speakers, figure out your own rules for commas, I'm going to stick to the rules of Ukrainian, thank you very much. In particular, denoting a subordinate clause with comma(s) is a must...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think he'll get it (Score:2)
End Run Around Free Speech ????? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it's and End Run Around Free Speech. (Score:3)
I believe this is an attempt to curb free speech on the internet.
That's exactly what it is. Too many people are becoming informed and educating themselves now policy decisions can be made to keep people wasting each others time watching cat vids on facebook whilst education and things important to running a free society are kept inaccessible.
Your post should be MODed UP instead of down, however that really shows how this is going to work.
what a bunch of loonies you people are (Score:1)
How did /. degenerate into such a bunch of loonies so fast, as demonstrated by the posts here? My bet is professional agitators. Probably not Russian but just as nefarious. Anyone who believes the 90% of the posts here that are loony lefty drivel should be ashamed of themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well Trump's added a corporatocrat and an executive power maximalist to the supreme court, so if there's ever a time they'll gleefully take this demand, it's now.