SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.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
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Kindness is a language which the deaf can hear and the blind can read.
-- Mark Twain
(Score: 3, Informative) by stretch611 on Friday May 04 2018, @03:12PM (7 children)
Even on the off chance they had the votes to pass the bill, Trump would veto it. So it has no hope... but as mentioned earlier, it will be used as political fodder during the elections because low ball estimates roughly 86% of the population are against the changes the FCC is currently making to net neutrality.
Meanwhile the Republicans are doing the same exact thing on a statewide level in Iowa. Banning abortion so early that many women don't even know they are pregnant yet. (6 weeks) Even with the more conservative Supreme Court we have now, it is not likely to hold up. (Roe Vs Wade specifically allowed abortions until a fetus was viable to live on its own outside the womb; while medical science has lowered that number from 24 weeks in the 70s to 20-22 weeks now, that is nowhere near the 6 week limitation in the IOWA bill; and if they allow a complete reversal of existing Supreme Court precedents that will open the flood gates to have every precedent retried in perpetuity, including many that conservatives would never want to have questioned again.)
This is just another one of the many reasons why we need to get rid of the two party system.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 04 2018, @04:51PM
> low ball estimates roughly 86% of the population are against the changes the FCC is currently making to net neutrality
13.999% are just uninformed, and the remainder works for, or has major holdings in, the big Telcos.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @05:44PM (5 children)
Is that a bad thing?
Now, remember, I am neither D, nor R. I despise both, remember? So - would it really be a bad thing to revisit long established precedents? Like, how about income tax? That was only put into place to pay for a war - the first time. Then again, to pay for a war. The final time, it had justifications, but we still have the IRS long after the justificaiton expired. (Note, I don't mind paying income tax, terribly - it only pisses me off that gubberment doesn't tax everyone equally.)
Interstate trade has been used many, MANY times to justify the feds interfering in individual state's jurisdictions. Some of those decisions need to be revisited. I could go on for awhile, with bogus precedents that were decided wrongly. I think we all recognize that the legal system works well for the rich, and poorly for the poor. So many precedents to address, and so little time. It would take at least half a century to even address them all, and much longer to actually correct most or all of the unjust precedents.
Want to discuss the infamous Drug Enforcement Agency? That is probably the single most fucked up agency the US has. They openly break the law, to entrap dumbasses. Even the FBI isn't so blatant with that kind of nonsense. Yet, the DEA wins case, after case. Just think of all the precedents that need to be overturned, for just that one agency.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 2) by Bobs on Friday May 04 2018, @06:06PM (4 children)
If we are going to force every law to be revisited, I think it is better done by the legislature.
I would prefer something like:
Unless otherwise specified, every law expires in 10 years.
If you want a law to last for more than 10 years, you must get a 2/3 majority vote to pass it.
Something like that. It puts the onus on the legislature to review, revive and fix the laws, not the courts.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 04 2018, @06:13PM (1 child)
Not a bad idea. There are so many obsolete laws on the books. That quote of the day at the bottom of my Soylent page has reminded me that in some city, it is illegal to eat in a burning building. I'm not doing a search to find out, but it's believable.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @09:47PM
Amazing!!! Another thing that Runaway believes without knowing anything! Truly astounding powers of faith the man has, with so much energy saving on the side of research and actual, factual, correct knowledge!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @08:52PM
Personally, I think the 2/3s majority should be required for all laws that aren't available for review (in final form) for a period of 3 weeks prior to the vote.
That way, we don't get "we didn't have time to read the law" for anything remotely controversial. If you need some money to pay for preventing hurricane damage, then you should be able to get that 2/3s.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday May 05 2018, @05:09AM
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."