Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#81

Post by avs733 »

IncRnd wrote: post #63
DannyBee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those links are about air pollution not general interstate commerce or Title II.

The parent post was about air pollution rules and whether/why/why not they could be used as a corollary to understand what might happen in this case.

The post you are responding to explains that the specific type of legislation that the parent is asking about was explicitly identified in federal law as allowable.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#82

Post by doe88 »

dang wrote: post #69
doe88 wrote: post #37

Not surprised. Republicans advocate for judicial restraint only as long as it suits them.

Please keep partisan flamewar off HN. It will burn everything else up if allowed to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, I didn't know it was controversial, I thought it was a fact. I listen to a lot of podcasts about the supreme court from the Constitution Center (very very good btw) and some of the judicial philosophies very often advanced by conservatives are originalism and judicial restraint.

I don't have any eggs in this game, so I maybe should have added : politics on both sides are primarly shape shifters and adapt their positions to their relative powers and current objectives. I only think that at one point both sides should take their responsabilities and own their previous positions, accountability is the only way to move forward imo.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#83

Post by sbov »

dragonwriter wrote: post #43
Gibbon1 wrote: post #39

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.

Interestingly, a lot of states are like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#84

Post by Retric »

imbur wrote: post #38
analog31 wrote: post #23

I wonder how the business that I conduct with my ISP is "interstate commerce." The wire connecting my house to my ISP begins and ends in my state. As I understand things, it's the speed of data running up and down that wire that net neutrality seeks to protect.

Wickard v. Filburn is the landmark case here. A farmer growing wheat on his own land, to feed to animals on his own land, all in the same state, is considered interstate commerce. The supreme court decided that the test is not about whether it is really interstate commerce, but if the activity exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.

You can’t see internet across state lines. You can sell wheat across state lines, which seems like a major difference.

The heathcare system is another example of this. Emergency rooms in Texas are useless to people in Florida.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#85

Post by saalweachter »

blihp wrote: post #64
gerash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a lot of value placed on consistency and predictability both in civil and criminal law. If the law were arbitrary, then there really is no single set of rules that apply equally to everyone. So when a court decides X in a given case, any other parties going to a court in the same jurisdiction with the same set of facts and circumstances expects the case to be decided in a similar way. Of course, that's the pe…

I would emphasize "any other parties": one of the goals is that if I or if someone who is rich, famous or influential were to be defendants in court cases with similar facts, we would receive similar judgements - who the defendant is shouldn't matter, and paying attention to relevant precedents helps ensure that.

I would also mention that the internet tends to misuse precedent in the same way, well, the internet misuses logical fallacies. Finding a precedent you think is applicable to a court case doesn't mean the verdict is decided. Both sides, assuming they have competent lawyers, will submit numerous precedents they believe favors their side, after all. It is up to the courts to decide whether the precedents are applicable and whether to apply the precedent in any give case; precedents inform the court, they do not replace it.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#86

Post by stult »

DannyBee wrote: post #21

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…

>They would have been much better off saying "we have plenty of authority here and we explicitly choose not to exercise it"

That would open the issue up to reregulation under a later administration.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#87

Post by gnode »

gerash wrote: post #49
jackpirate wrote: post #35

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.

Because the US justice system inherits from English common law. The moral motivation is that it is unfair to judge equivalent cases differently. This contrasts with civil law systems, used predominantly throughout mainland Europe / ex-Roman empire, which have the moral motivation that explicit codification of the law is the best way to be fair.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#88

Post by atomi »

billner wrote: post #78
Gibbon1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That branch of the Republican party is extinct though.

Immigration changed California to solidly blue more than anything else.

You could also argue that it was Republican's refusal to address the needs of immigrants that lost them California.

But only American citizens can vote. And I can't seem to find any data on the increase of the California population from naturalized citizens.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#89

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #70
Gibbon1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republicans have been trashing California since the Vietnam war.

I think Republicans hate all blue States. Due to America's peculiar Electoral College system one man is not one vote. This keeps California severely disenfranchised in American politics. Californians are second class citizens. And when they try to exercise their state rights the Republicans are quick to stop them.

California should secede. It has enough people to form its own government representative of the population.

Re: Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

#90

Post by mrhappyunhappy »

olliej wrote: post #42
dd36 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would DoJ spend time drafting a lawsuit against a law that isn’t yet law? Just seems odd. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of telecoms? Doesn’t DoJ have enough on its plate?

That's the point, the DoJ isn't spending time, they're regurgitating material produced by lawyers working for the carriers. Why is DoJ sending messages on behalf of the carriers? Because the current administration has demonstrated it will do anything they're paid to do. Doesn't the DoJ have enough on its plate? Like what? The purpose of the DoJ is /ostensibly/ to protect people from abuses by people who have more mon…

Don’t forget when the too big to fail banks were given passes without so much a slap on the wrist under Holder’s oversight. The whole thing is a joke. Oh and he is now back serving the masters he protected. I can only imagine how much they are paying him for doing their bidding.
Post reply on HN