YepâŚALL for the middle class and believing that all people are created âequalâ. Except of course, those with moneyâŚ
Can someone expand upon what this means going forward? Trump repealed the rules, and yet the lower ruling that went against the telecom industry stands? That seems paradoxical.
Feeling dense, but missing the bottom line. Does this mean a future president could reinstate the rules?
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have granted the industryâs request.
The dirty three that are bought and paid corporate shills, soon they will add the fourth.
Agreed, not clear what the implications of this areâŚ
Yep, or Congress could get off their collective azzes, including Dims in this one.
Yeah, does this mean that SCOTUS just upheld net neutrality rules from Obama?
The sentence says that the lower court upheld net neutrality. And now the supreme court just elected not to overturn that. Doesnât that mean they are now supporting net neutrality?
Obviously it means Jeff Sessions should be fired.
I think, as lbj860 said, the original court ruling was that the FCC has the ability to set net neutrality rules. The industry wanted to get rid of that altogether, and lost, so Paiâs repeal of the Obama rule can itself be easily undone by the next Democratic administration.
This is a huge deal because it means telecom companies will have to expect that it will be, if not a permanent policy, then at least in place during Democratic administrations, so they wonât be able to make long term plans based on throttling.
Three Supreme Court Justices vote to purge the judicial record of the case that upholds the legal basis to regulate the internet. Nothing says independent judiciary and ârule of lawâ like voting to eliminate any case that goes against your political ideology.
And there is still a case working its way through the courts that challenges Paiâs repeal. This ruling clarifies the remaining case somewhat - if SCOTUS had decided that the Obama net neutrality rules were overreach by the FCC, then Paiâs repeal of those rules couldnât be challenged, and this other case would have become moot. Now itâs a simple question: did Pai have the power to repeal the net neutrality rules?
Agreed but the (unexplained) recusal of Kavanaugh and Roberts isnât promising since, in light of their history, they would likely join the neocon gang of three in future rulings on this subject and others favorable to movement conservatives and corporations. Like it or not we are stuck with a radical reactionary SCOTUS for a generation unless the Democrats gain the seats and the stones to pack it.
On the net neutrality subject, unless Roberts divests himself of his stock holdings, heâd still have to recuse himself, leaving it at 4-4. And I maintain that Kavanaugh should recuse himself because he and his minders accessed the interwebs to post novel, radically cleaned-up definitions for âboofâ and âthe devilâs triangle,â without which he wouldnât have been confirmed.
THIS is why getting the Senate is so important. McConnell has been packing the Federal bench with worthless, brainless, right-wing Trump-supporting sycophantsâŚ
Fire Mitch!
Vote tomorrow, November 6th like your very LIFE depended on it!
What the Supreme Court (or four Justices) did was to let stand a lower courtâs opinion that the Obama Administrationâs FCC had done nothing wrong in imposing certain rules in 2015.
Meanwhile those rules have been rescinded.
There are other on-going lawsuits that (roughly speaking) seek to put some or all of those rules back in place. What the Supreme Court (or four Justices) did does not affect these on-going lawsuits.
And yes, for those who are wondering: The above headline is misleading.
Unexplained? Roberts owns stock in Time-Warner (or âWarnerMedia,â or whatever theyâre calling it these days); and Kavanaugh was part of the lower court whose ruling was in question.
This article is easier to understand. After reading it appears itâs the same old D.Dump revenge of 1.) kill everything that Obama did in the name of fairness and 2.) kill free speech through communication.
Sounds very similar to Raygunâs elimination of the Fairness Doctrine that hatched fox false news. Interesting that the Râs have a long history of trying to control communication. Gee I wonder why.
I believe it does. The defendants in these on-going lawsuits can no longer argue that Pai was justified in repealing the rules because the FCC didnât have the power to impose them in the first place.
Well, letâs see.