Hold onto your horses cowboy. Has anyone slamming the court's decision actually read it? (Be honest.) If not, then you're no better than the liberal liars who slammed Ann Coulter's book before reading it, and have called Mel Gibson's movie about the death of Christ anti-semetic even though the movie isn't finished and won't be released for months.
I haven't read the court's decision yet either. And even though I detest telemarketing (I've already signed on to the "do not call lsit"), the seperation of powers doctrine in the Constitution prohibits executive agencies such as the FTC from regulating beyond the scope of their authority as delegated by Congress. If the FTC lacks the authority to regulate in this particular area (and I don't know the answer either way), then we should be applauding the Federal District Court judge for what he did no matter how popular the regulation at issue, and hope that more judges will follow suit when reviewing the legality of bureaurocratic initiatives.
No, but I can guess what it is, a lengthy recitation of the authority of the FTC, a quick look at freedom of speech for commercial entities (telemarketers claim a First Amendment right to call), and some conclusory statements about irreparable harm (the standard for grant of a temporary restraining order).
Let's try it another way, through a simple test:
Which of the folowing statments is NOT true regarding the way federal courts interpret the "Right of Privacy" supposedly found in the US Constitution?
(a) Women have an unrestricted right to abort babies
(b) Homosexuals have a right to engage in sodomy
(c) Ordinary citizens have a right to not be bothered by unwanted telephone calls
So, I conclude I have a right to be outraged by this action.
If the FTC lacks the authority to regulate in this particular area...."
The people gave that authority to the FCC by their signup. The problem is that a judge decides to over-rule the decision of 50 million fellow Americans who have voluntarily chosen to place their names/numbers on the list those bureaucrats have offered. This judge has, in effect, said the will of the people is of no concern to him/her.
I certainly don't need to read every word of the wild-buck opinion to conclude the judge is spurring his own horse. ;-)
Again, isn't that "delegation" precisely what was accomplished in the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President a few months ago?
No, and I don't care. Blocking implementation is uncalled for under any circumstances.