Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Senate Democrats to Force Vote on Net Neutrality on May 9th

posted by takyon on Friday May 04 2018, @01:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the resolve-to-disapprove dept.

MrPlow writes:

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4408

Senate Democrats plan to force vote on net neutrality May 9th

Democrats in Congress have been against the FCC's repeal of net neutrality rules from the beginning. They've had the signatures in favor of restoring the rules since January, along with a companion House bill (with 80 co-sponsors). Senator Edward J. Markey also introduced a formal Congressional Review Act "resolution of disapproval" in February. Now, Markey tweeted that Democrats will force a floor vote restore the rules on May 9th.

Also at The Verge and Tom's Hardware.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Senate Democrats to Force Vote on Net Neutrality on May 9th | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 28 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:09AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:09AM (#675984)

    If we are going to force every law to be revisited, I think it is better done by the legislature.

    This side discussion started on the subject of revisiting "laws" that were made by the courts and never voted on by a legislature or signed by an executive. Do think IA is pushing the calendar a bit, would be better to wait for Ginsberg and Kennedy to be replaced by Trump first.

    I'd like to see the judicial overreach problem fixed by an Amendment on the order of:

    "By a 3/5 vote of both the House and Senate and the signature of the President OR by bills passed out of 3/5 of the Legislatures of the States by the normal rules for passing a bill in each State, any ruling by the Supreme Court can be erased from having any binding precedence (thus avoiding double jeopardy and ex-post facto problems) and all Justices who were in the majority for the opinion so stricken shall carry a Black Mark on their record. Three such Black Marks will be considered evidence of bad behavior sufficient to remove said Justice from the court. A Justice so rebuked may not thereafter serve in any position of trust under the United States government but shall not be subject to any other punishment."

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3