this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
760 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

58315 readers
6013 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Holy shit i can't believe someone is trying to both sides this. Trump got three nominees, and put 3 far right wing people on the court. If Clinton had put three people on, this would have all gone absolutely been like left wing of the court now, and these people would have gone the other way. And we still have morons clinging to the nonsense that it's the fault of both sides. Amazing.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other. The other poster made the ridiculous claim that had Clinton instead appointed 3 justices, giving the court of 5-4 left majority, that it still would have gone down the same way.

What opinions gorsuch has written has no bearing on this. I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not even sure why you're bringing it up.

I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.

On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.

Inorder as above:

NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK

NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT

NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK

That'd only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.

Nor is that what i did. Or wait...are you arguing that they aren't right wing...because then..wow, I'm not sure what to say.

The fact that it doesn't always line up left right doesn't change the fact that these did.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.

The fact that it doesn't always line up left right doesn't change the fact that these did.

Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn't. Which I consider you don't given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.

If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn't be on the same sides.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Court overturns roe v wade.

"Well, it's kind of ridiculous to point out that the court has shifted to the right due to trump appointees because sometimes they all rule the same way."

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's the point i made, and one of the arguments you used.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

one of the arguments you used.

It decidedly is not.

I don't think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.

I didn't contend that if you follow a linear political view they'd be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

30% of the time opinions are 9-0.

sometimes they all rule the same way.

It decidedly is not.

Lol

I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.

So quibbling about how far right they actually are, rather than the actual point that the court is obviously much further right than it would have been had Clinton won.

I kind of feel justified in my "strawmen."

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices. 3 is a significant number, but not a majority, and only half of the 6 votes that said "akshually, public officers receiving gifts after doing a favor isn't bribery"

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

I’m not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices.

You should then also realize how little you know about it and not use it to make sweeping generalizations about America politics.

But no, you're still trying to both sides it. Fucking wow.