General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

23. What? You've cited an opinion where SCOTUS agrees that the classification of "information services"

Wed Apr 23, 2014, 10:16 PM

Apr 2014

is reasonable.

Is that what you meant to argue?

Further, it's kind of apparent you didn't read the whole case you are citing, since the Court approves of the two step Chevron process the FCC used to classify as "information services."

So--taking this case, which really does nothing for your argument, describe to us, as the majority opinion suggests that you do, your Chevron analysis for why Declaratory Ruling 4823 should have been different, and why SCOTUS should have ruled differently? (I guess...I really don't think you picked a very good summary of this case.)

If you are going to cite cases, it's kind of best to read them. Not just the summary of them.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ahh, Memory Lane..."Obama's Bad Pick: A Former [Cable Industry] Lobbyist at the FCC" [View all] Maven Apr 2014 OP

So bad that Warren, Sanders, and Franken voted for him, unreservedly? Your OP is facile, because msanthrope Apr 2014 #1

Unreservedly you say? Maven Apr 2014 #2

Apparently, Sanders kept an open mind, kept his promise, and met with Wheeler and voted for him.... msanthrope Apr 2014 #3

"Senators Urge FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to �Move Quickly� to Preserve �Open Internet'" Maven Apr 2014 #6

I asked on another thread just how the reclassification was going to survive the same court...since msanthrope Apr 2014 #7

What? The FCC did not reclassify. Maven Apr 2014 #10

Yes--they did...10 years ago. In the 2002 case. So now, kindly explain to me how the FCC, as msanthrope Apr 2014 #12

Correct, the FCC classified ISPs as an "information service", not a telecom...EXACTLY as I said Maven Apr 2014 #13

Yes--it actually does need a legal reason to change its own rules. That's how a democracy works. msanthrope Apr 2014 #14

No, actually, you did not give me such a ruling. Maven Apr 2014 #16

I understand you backing down. But I really would like for you to tell us all exactly the legal msanthrope Apr 2014 #17

I'm not backing down at all. You're simply wrong, you don't understand how to read the decision Maven Apr 2014 #18

Again...tell me the legal justification for the rule change. It's a pretty simple question, and you msanthrope Apr 2014 #20

see e.g. NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION ET AL v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES ET AL Maven Apr 2014 #22

What? You've cited an opinion where SCOTUS agrees that the classification of "information services" msanthrope Apr 2014 #23

You're confusing the holding of the case with its outcome. Maven Apr 2014 #24

Um, no. Your problem is that you still haven't provided a legal basis for changing the msanthrope Apr 2014 #25

Not because it feels like doing so. Maven Apr 2014 #27

If there are plenty of legal arguments, then would you please LIST THEM????? msanthrope Apr 2014 #28

I'll jump in here: the FCC does not have "complete discretion" to change a previous position onenote Apr 2014 #32

LOL. It's so refreshing to read the words of people like Sanders and Warren Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #8

Oh...I'm waiting for the legal analysis of the appeal from this thread..... msanthrope Apr 2014 #9

The words of Sanders... Maven Apr 2014 #11

Nice article where the Republicans express their dislike of Wheeler for proposing more regulations.. msanthrope Apr 2014 #15

His nomination was music to the telecom industry's ears Maven Apr 2014 #19

Indeed--and Wheeler proposed regulations against AT&T when they tried to merge. The fact msanthrope Apr 2014 #21

Warren, Sanders and Franken....sellouts ALL!!! Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #4

UNDER THE BUS!!! And godamn the FCC for obeying the courts!!! nt msanthrope Apr 2014 #5

And once again The Group sides with Corp-America. The FCC just another tool for Corp-America. rhett o rick Apr 2014 #29

I've told you I am sort of an administrative law hobbyist. joshcryer Apr 2014 #31

The problem is, Josh, andyou have captured it, is that there's the 2002 directive. Plus the msanthrope Apr 2014 #35

On the same page. joshcryer Apr 2014 #36

Obama? Favoring corporate interests over those of his electorate, in one of his picks!? villager Apr 2014 #26

Obama pledged to have the most bi-partisan cabinet ever. joshcryer Apr 2014 #30

that's not all we got, pal. nt grasswire Apr 2014 #33

It sure is. joshcryer Apr 2014 #34