Net neutrality in danger again: US appeals court puts FCC's resurrected rule on hold The Federal Communications Commission's attempt to reassert net neutrality rules has been put on hold by the US Sixth Circuit of Appeals pending further review. The FCC re-approved net neutrality rules in April, leading to immediate appeals from a number of telecommunications firms and trade organizations. It wasn't until late …
This is actually simple: BOTH the executive and judicial branches must REFRAIN from deriving laws where thry do nott exist.
In the USA it is CONGRESS that makes laws, NOT bureaucrats nor judges.
If you want "net neutrality" have CONGRESS do it.
In the UK, there is no separation of the Executive and the Legislature, so the Courts have limited opportunity to insert themself between the two.
And in the UK system, appeal from the court system is to the Privy Council, which is itself part of the Executive/Legislature system.
So judicial activism is not built-in feature like it is of the American system.
But the Loper Bright /Chevron decisions are a breathtaking shift in the American balance between the three arms of their system.
Watching it, I wonder if the courts are moving into a vacuum created by decades of congressional deadlock?
And now the "classified documents" case against Trump has been thrown out, following the same Bright/Cheveron line - it's like watching a tower of blocks fall, completely re-mapping the American system of government.
American laws, as passed by Congress, look completely different to British laws, because the American laws aren't written by the executive branch for their own use, the way the British government writes laws. American laws assume implementation by the executive branch. Where is this going next?
The fall of the docs case was not unexpected. There was no basis in law for how it was being handled. Just waiting on the fall of the 'fraud' case.
In recent times prosecutors have gone for the conviction at all costs approach and this has resulted in Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein having their convictions reversed due to quite fundamental blunders on the part of the prosecution.
And now the Clinton campaign has had a spanking over $6M being incorrectly recorded trying to influence the 2016 election.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-just-nailed-hillary-in-6-million-fec-violation-case-45x-bigger-than-trumps-130k-so-called-violation/ar-BB1pPrdy
I guess the estate of Nixon will be after a posthumous acquittal and re-instatement of his good name over Watergate next. Telephones and recording devices are not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution so it’s judicial overreach or just waive the Prez immunity.
FFS MAGA/Neo-Con stuffed SCOTUS madness.
The UK Supreme Court came into being in 2009. It took over the role as the highest court for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and civil cases in Scotland). The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has a few roles within the UK (ecclesiastical courts etc.) and remains the highest court for some other countries (Channel Islands, some Commonwealth countries, overseas territories and a few others) but doesn't have a major role within the UK any more.
I did not know that. That explains a couple of significant decisions extending the role of the courts in the last 5 years.
(The left balancing their replacement of the House of Lords with a politicly selected class from Eton, with the replacement of the Privy Council with a politically selected class from Eton. I would think that the left would come to regret both decisions, except that the leadership of the left in the UK is a politically selected class from Eton.)
Don’t tell me - like electricity, nuclear weapons, plastic, antibiotics, space exploration and television … the Internet was not specifically written into the US Constitution so is outside the remit of the Fed’s as being unconstitutional and involvement in it.
Neo-con/Maga-horseshit.
If the people choose to flip-flop every 4 years, it is not up to the courts to stop them.
It might be stupid.
It might be damaging to the economy, or to business.
However, the justice system is not there to prevent any of those things. It is there to ensure the administration of justice is fair.
Congress (chosen by the people) make the laws. The executive (chosen by the people) administers them and has choice about how to do that where unspecified by congress. The courts are there to ensure the administration follows the constitution and that it follows the laws congress has made.
You can’t just point to a 250 year old document and say stuff is not in there so it’s judicial overreach and can’t be limite or ruled on.
Exactly. I fear you misunderstood my point. My point is that the people (acting through congress) has authorised the people (acting through the president) to create executive agencies which can institute these rules, at their discretion. If the people (acting as congress) meant the executive to be limited as to what rules could be enacted, it had to say so. Just like if it decides people cannot keep dogs as pets it has to say so.
It is the courts which are acting unconstitutionally by inventing a doctrine that says "the executive agencies cannot create rules unless the rules themselves are in an act of congress"..
No one is saying the agencies can't create rules, in fact creating and enforcing rules is just what they are supposed to do. However, those rules have to be reasonably consistent with the laws passed by Congress.
One example is this whole kerfuffle over transgender people. When Congress passed Title IV in 1972 it was specifically to address discrimination against women. The current administration has written rules requiring schools and other organizations to treat biological men who "identify" as women as natural born women. Forcing these organizations to allow men into women's locker and rest rooms, along with competing against women in sports.
Not only is this grossly unfair to the women and girls, but it's also dangerous. Some of these claimed transgenders have evil intent and rapes have occurred, they are also bigger and heavier than natural women and have caused injuries.
Congress NEVER passed a law allowing that, it's certainly not a part of Title IV, if it was the bill never would have passed. The Executive Branch just decided that's what it wanted to do.
The Chevron decision was one that actually made a bit of sense at the time, it is logical that people in the agencies who were experts on some topic would write the rules. But like any human endeavor all too often you give someone a little bit of power and they can't help but abuse it.
That's what happed here, and that's why the ruling overturning Chevron was the right thing to do.
They're screwed either way:
If they lose: they become Common Carriers (yay for the common people) which means Net Neutrality, but also they cannot be held responsible for the crap they allow through their networks.
If the win: no Common Carrier status (yay for them) but also it could then be argued that they are now responsible for any illegal communications passing through their networks (since they are so gung-ho on saying it's their rights to decide what to do with the traffic based on who/what is behind it).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
