61–70 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not unique to Trump. California has been the boogeyman of the right for quite a while now.
But if a liberal makes a joke abut southern rednecks than they get all indignant about how elitist and offensive they are. So tiresome.
The interesting part of this to me is that if you read the details the FCC published about the order that was signed, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-347927A1.pdf it goes into great detail about the court cases about why the FCC has no authority to effectively regulate net neutrality unless the ISP's are classified under Title 2. (This is true, in fact, and the court cases it cites and the DC circuit have…
I think Fed gov, is arguing that California cannot regulate interstate commerce. So they cannot, for example create an 'import tax'.
I suspect, that eventually the argument will be around Originating and Terminating IP addresses. If both are in CA, then they can regulate it. If at least one outside -- than they cannot.
In telecom US taxation is there a well known, rule called 2-out-3 Rule.
One has to look at originating number location, terminating number location, and the location of the billing address. Then the tax will be levied according the rules of the jurisdiction, that is identified by 2 same out of the 3.
(I do not remember, what would be the case when all 3 are different... ).
So in the case of internet, I suspect, FCC will argue that CA can enforce the rule only for the location that satisfy something similar to 2-out-3 rule.
So for CA resident to be within the scope of the enforcement, they would have to use, say a VPN that's is also in CA...
Otherwise, CA cannot regulate a genuine interstate service.
Sorry if I get some basic understanding of the law wrong but... Isn't this the same thing as regulating car emissions? Doesn't 822 only apply to providers in the state itself? Wouldn't it be that the telecoms are welcome to engage in another method of end-customer billing in other states? What am I missing?
California's rules are explicitly allowed by the clean air act, otherwise they would not be okay. See, e.g, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7416 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7402 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7410
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. Learning about cases like this makes me wish I trained to be a lawyer just so I understood exactly how weird law really is.
There is so much emphasis placed on precedent in the US justice system and I don't understand why. With that line of argument I could also argue anything you do or say within the confines of your house is also public's business because it affects the public ultimately one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Republicans have been trashing California since the Vietnam war.
Republicans dominated California in federal elections for most of its history until 1992; it was one of the most solid of Republican strongholds. Republicans have been trashing Hollywood and San Francisco/Berkeley for a long time, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Democrats argue states’ rights when it suits them.
Democrats use state rights to protect scientifically and economically sound policies when there is an obvious bad faith actions on the part of the Federal Government.
I mean if reacting against the Federal Government not upholding contractual obligations is your argument then the democratic party has been consistent!
(look, don't get defensive to protect the base, I've got zero chips in the game, just come up with a better argument)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You left out how both... all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate
> all political parties cater to special interests but otherwise accurate Your statement is so broad as to be effectively meaningless. Sun rises in the east. So what? The difference is that the GP is beholden completely to its corporate masters and does not hesitate in engaging in lies, false propaganda and bad faith politics to achieve its goals. All of which are corrupt and very anti-democratic.
Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has been especially committed to challenging some of the administration's various injustices. Trump has made California one of his symbolic, non-white boogeymen in order to manipulate his "base." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/05/us/politics/trump-califor...
Republicans have been trashing California since the Vietnam war.
Californians are second class citizens. And when they try to exercise their state rights the Republicans are quick to stop them.