DC Court declines to rehear net neutrality case

The Hill ^ | 02 07 2020 | Chris Mills Rodrigo

[yesthatjallen]

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday denied multiple appeals to rehear a decision upholding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) repeal of the Obama-era net neutrality rules.

The 2015 net neutrality rules classified internet service providers as common carriers, similar to telecommunications providers, who are not allowed to discriminate against various forms of traffic.

The FCC under Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai repealed those rules in late 2017 and also barred states from passing their own net neutrality regulations.

Pai's action faced legal challenges but was upheld by a district court and then by the D.C. Circuit in October. The circuit court, however, struck down the measure blocking states from implementing their own net neutrality rules.

SNIP

[FlipWilson]

And winning and winning aaaaand winning.

[11th_VA]

More winning ?

[Drango]

This will twist the left’s knickers even more.

[gibsonguy]

Yes more winning.

[Zathras]

“Net Neutrality” has nothing to do with discrimination.
It was to monitor and control the media message but with the added legal power of the DOJ.
We were very lucky we dodged this bullet this time but it will show up again and again.

[dontreadthis]

as much as we will never tire of winning, they will never tire of losing

[jimmygrace]

At this point I would agree with Google neutrality and Twitter neutrality... and even MSM neutrality.

[SunkenCiv]

The circuit court, however, struck down the measure blocking states from implementing their own net neutrality rules.

[bigbob]

Federalism is a type of government in which the power is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary government, in which a central authority holds all the power.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article yesthatjallen. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"The FCC under Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai repealed those rules in late 2017 and also barred states from passing their own net neutrality regulations [??? emphasis added]."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Yes, the Founding States made the 1st Amendment to expressly prohibit federal laws that abridge freedoms of press and speech.

H O W E V E R…

The early states had made the 10th Amendment (10A) to clarify that government powers not expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are reserved uniquely to the states, powers reserved to the states now limited by 14th Amendment (14A).

From the 14th Amendment:

• "Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

• "Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In fact, Justice Reed had clarified that it is the job of the courts to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A application of express constitutional protections to the states.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery.” —Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.

H O W E V E R… A G A I N…

Note that later in the same year that Jones v. City of Opelika was decided, using inappropriate terms like “concept” and “implicit," FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices politically repealed 10A in Wickard v. Filburn imo.

• "10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

• "In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942

So it’s no surprise that post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated federal bureaucrats running constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies like FCC and IRS, non-elected bureaucrats who have no constitutional authority to exercise federal legislative / regulatory powers, are dictating overkill policies that unthinkingly weaken state sovereignty imo.

Corrections, insights welcome.

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAGA! (Keep America Great Always!)

[Major Matt Mason]

Net Neutrality was hijacked by the Marxists to aid their efforts in taking over the internet. Sadly, some on our side were duped into believing their efforts were pure, but once again, thank goodness Trump won.

[Nabron]

I want to see an ad by the pro net neutrality side; to the effect that net neutrality supporters shouldn’t upgrade to 5G, shouldn’t get better packages, or acquire more bandwidth etc.

[mowowie]

Well the good times are over.
At least hussein got his payoff from netflix...