Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List

Fox News ^ | http://www.foxnews.com/

[Willie Green]

Nottingham Edward Us District Judge

This dude was appointed by Papa Bush back in '89. (source)

[river rat]

This simply proves that our Law Schools are graduating morons...

This is NOT a 1st Ammendment case...
The telemarketer's right to free speech, does NOT entitle them to force me to listen...on MY time, on MY phone, in MY home.

My practice has been to ask the telemarketer to take my name off their call list- and hang up.

Semper Fi

[TechJunkYard]

Caller-ID, a Tele-Zapper and an answering machine.

Telemarketers really need to find something else to do.

[tiamat]

With All Due Respect, No.

See this judge is saying that since the bill as presented exempts politicians and charities that it is unfair to people who are just selling stuff. What I am saying is that the solution to have the bill pass is to write it in such a way that NO group has special access.

NO one should have the "right" to intrude on you, unless you give them leave.

Tia

[foreverfree]

bump

[fqued]

Nottingham ain't no flaming liberal, so this decision may mean something.

[bvw]

That's the golden straw you just drew.

[bvw]

The silver staw is drawn by you with that.

[Hotdog]

You took the words out of my mouth...

[m1-lightning]

What I am saying is that the solution to have the bill pass is to write it in such a way that NO group has special access.

Now THAT would be unconstitutional. See post #53.

[bvw]

With that you draw the rusty tin straw. I'm afraid you don't know what commerce is.

[tiamat]

Oh! Wow! You're right!

Well, that's okay.

Tia

[alancarp]

I agree: the telephone is a device that I own, with a service that I pay for, for my own convenience -- a fact that my employer doesn't seem to understand, either.

This case should be about Harrassment, Privacy, and the crime of people preying upon gulliable consumers.

Think about it: government regulation, bad as it may be, typically does not occur until some kind of "abuse" occurs. That's the case here.

Note this: if this judge believes that the lists are unconstitutional, then you have to also throw out every STATE law already on the books on this subject. ARRRGGGGGH!

[Don Carlos]

I'm no lawyer (and no, I don't play one on TV). But doesn't a judge somehow need to have standing in the case in order to rule? In other words, who invited these two clowns to the party?

[m1-lightning]

With that you draw the rusty tin straw. I'm afraid you don't know what commerce is.

I'm afraid I do: Definition of Commerce

Of course you draw the leftist whacko straw by refering to "A Liberal Judge's Guide on interpreting the Constitution with a Thesaraus and a Leftist's Dictionary to Benefit Special Interest Groups". If you go by that book, Congress can regulate sexual intercourse.

[alancarp]

When you call, try and sell this Judge a set of Law Books. And a copy of the U.S. Constitutional thrown in if he acts before midnight tonight.

[m1-lightning]

In other words, who invited these two clowns to the party?

ACLU? LMAO

[1L]

BUT it is BAD law, and a BAD idea.

Perhaps, but that's for politicians to decide and not judges. This is a political and not a constitutional issue. Congress may regulate interstate commerce. There are already restrictions from calling people before 8 and after 9 -- even for companies with pre-existing relationships, i.e. you basically agree to be called by giving them your number and doing business with them.

It doesn't matter much for Texans. We have a do not call list that no one, even out of state companies, may penetrate.

[bvw]

You do not. Say you then that all "social interaction" is commerce?

[ladyinred]

Incredible. I am sick to death of judges playing dicator! This has to stop!