Skip to comments.
Second U.S. Judge Blocks 'Do-Not-Call' List
Fox News ^
| http://www.foxnews.com/
Posted on 09/25/2003 4:10:17 PM PDT by Hotdog
War of the laws?...whats next?
TOPICS: Breaking News
KEYWORDS: donotcalllist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 401-408 next last
To: Lunatic Fringe
Nottingham Edward Us District Judge This dude was appointed by Papa Bush back in '89. (source)
To: Hotdog
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
142
posted on
09/25/2003 6:26:05 PM PDT
by
river rat
(War works......It brings Peace... Give war a chance to destroy Jihadists...)
To: river rat
Caller-ID, a
Tele-Zapper and an answering machine.
Telemarketers really need to find something else to do.
To: kcar
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
144
posted on
09/25/2003 6:34:53 PM PDT
by
tiamat
("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
To: Hotdog
bump
To: Lunatic Fringe
Nottingham ain't no flaming liberal, so this decision may mean something.
146
posted on
09/25/2003 6:38:28 PM PDT
by
fqued
(facts are nasty little things, but that doesn't mean we should squash them)
To: Graybeard58
That's the golden straw you just drew.
147
posted on
09/25/2003 6:47:44 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: TomGuy
The silver staw is drawn by you with that.
148
posted on
09/25/2003 6:48:54 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: river rat
You took the words out of my mouth...
149
posted on
09/25/2003 6:49:08 PM PDT
by
Hotdog
To: tiamat
150
posted on
09/25/2003 6:50:16 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(- A Charge To Keep -)
To: m1-lightning
With that you draw the rusty tin straw. I'm afraid you don't know what commerce is.
151
posted on
09/25/2003 6:51:08 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: m1-lightning
Oh! Wow! You're right!
Well, that's okay.
Tia
152
posted on
09/25/2003 6:54:04 PM PDT
by
tiamat
("Just a Bronze-Age Gal, Trapped in a Techno World!")
To: river rat
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!
153
posted on
09/25/2003 6:56:30 PM PDT
by
alancarp
(Saved by the Grace of God; In North Carolina likewise)
To: Hotdog
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?
154
posted on
09/25/2003 6:57:06 PM PDT
by
Don Carlos
(El que no le gusta vino es un amimal.)
To: bvw
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.
155
posted on
09/25/2003 6:58:26 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(- A Charge To Keep -)
To: RJL
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.
156
posted on
09/25/2003 6:58:30 PM PDT
by
alancarp
(Saved by the Grace of God; In North Carolina likewise)
To: Don Carlos
In other words, who invited these two clowns to the party? ACLU? LMAO
157
posted on
09/25/2003 6:59:41 PM PDT
by
m1-lightning
(- A Charge To Keep -)
To: Professional
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.
158
posted on
09/25/2003 7:01:48 PM PDT
by
1L
To: m1-lightning
You do not. Say you then that all "social interaction" is commerce?
159
posted on
09/25/2003 7:03:41 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: Hotdog
Incredible. I am sick to death of judges playing dicator! This has to stop!
160
posted on
09/25/2003 7:05:27 PM PDT
by
ladyinred
(The left have blood on their hands.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 401-408 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson