Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 99
   
Posts: 2301/2335
EXP: 9957232
For next: 42803
Since: 7.2.02
Since last post: 1425 days
Last activity: 1420 days
|  #2 Posted on 26.2.15 2001.59
Reposted on: 26.2.22 2002.47 | It's an odd feeling when I actually like something the FCC has done. There's a certain irony to all of this being a direct result of Verizon not leaving well enough alone.
Forbes has a nice write-up about why the courts are pretty much a dead end for the anti-net neutrality lobby:
Don't Worry, this Net Neutrality Order Will Survive in Court (forbes.com)
Originally posted by from the article
All nine Justices in that case agreed that Title II was a reasonable option. Five thought that “not Title II” was also reasonable, and they upheld the FCC decision. Another thought “not title II” was “barely” reasonable. But three, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, said, “Wait a second… ‘not Title II’ is a totally insane reading of the law.” These three thought that ‘not Title II’ was simply not a ”reasonable” interpretation of the Communications Act. The only reasonable interpretation, to these three Justices, was that Title II and only Title II applied.
Today, the FCC has finally, ten years after Brand X, come to their senses and vindicated Scalia. The FCC is choosing “Title II.” And remember, all nine of the Justices thought Title II was at least one of the reasonable interpretations and that the FCC can choose any reasonable interpretation.
Nine Justices. All nine. Agreed.
That doesn't mean they can't have a change of heart, I guess... but it certainly looks like there isn't much further that this can go. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
|
