“In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated.”
He certainly doesn't sound like an activist judge, so Susan Collins will likely approve of him. I am very pessimistic about the future.
Would you prefer a system where law can be overruled by the stroke of an unelected administrator's pen? All he this says is that if government wants a power, it has to follow a legal process to obtain it.
We had net neutrality under GWB. We lost it under Obama by a botched change in administration governance without corresponding legislation.
No, of course I wouldn't. I wasn't lamenting net neutrality, I was lamenting that I think he will be confirmed by means of those measured statements. The due process isn't upsetting, the fact the court will likely be regressive is.
With you having made me think about it, I'm pretty sure the supreme court judges are unelected administrators. Our Congress isn't representative, so I don't think their confirmation process is either.
3 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 12.1 ms ] thread“In short, although the briefs and commentary about the net neutrality issue are voluminous, the legal analysis is straightforward: If the Supreme Court’s major rules doctrine means what it says, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because Congress has not clearly authorized the FCC to issue this major rule. And if the Supreme Court’s Turner Broadcasting decisions mean what they say, then the net neutrality rule is unlawful because the rule impermissibly infringes on the Internet service providers’ editorial discretion. To state the obvious, the Supreme Court could always refine or reconsider the major rules doctrine or its decisions in the Turner Broadcasting cases. But as a lower court, we do not possess that power. Our job is to apply Supreme Court precedent as it stands. For those two alternative and independent reasons, the FCC’s net neutrality regulation is unlawful and must be vacated.”
He certainly doesn't sound like an activist judge, so Susan Collins will likely approve of him. I am very pessimistic about the future.
We had net neutrality under GWB. We lost it under Obama by a botched change in administration governance without corresponding legislation.
With you having made me think about it, I'm pretty sure the supreme court judges are unelected administrators. Our Congress isn't representative, so I don't think their confirmation process is either.