It is an outdated notion since back in those days everyone could shoot a musket and didn't require much other training to be a grunt. So it actually made sense to raise armies for a couple of years then disband and reform them as necessary.
Yup.
I've noticed that people outside of the military have absolutely no idea the amount of paperwork required to do the simplest shit. To go on leave, a right that service members have, you don't just ask the commander and then go sign out. You fill out a routing slip, print out your LES to show your accrued leave days, fill out a DA31 leave request form, have your supervisor to a vehicle inspection, print out your travel plans and itinerary, put it all in a folder that's reviewed and signed by your supervisor, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, XO, first sergeant, commander, sergeant major, and batallion commander. And that is considered easy.
Re-enlistments and enlistments produce hundreds of pieces of paper and take many weeks to complete. Imagine every single member of the service doing that at the exact same time?
Leave actually isn't a right, but a privilege. Any time off in the military is a privilege.
That said, I was half-jesting when I said Congress wouldn't renew the NDAA at some point. I say half-jest, because I don't think that would happen, but I also wouldn't put it past our lovely congress-critters to use the military as a weapon to hold the country hostage.
It's not like they haven't set a pattern of damaging the country with their obstructionism.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Leave actually isn't a right, but a privilege. Any time off in the military is a privilege.
That said, I was half-jesting when I said Congress wouldn't renew the NDAA at some point. I say half-jest, because I don't think that would happen, but I also wouldn't put it past our lovely congress-critters to use the military as a weapon to hold the country hostage.
It's not like they haven't set a pattern of damaging the country with their obstructionism.
Leave is a right, granted by the Federal government. Block leave exists so people can use their leave. If a soldier loses their use or lose days, commanders can and should get their asses chewed. Extended weekends, living off post, leaving your local area, and being able to drive are all privileges. Leave is an absolute Congressionally mandated right. Commanders can decide to deny based on mission status or if the soldier is a flight risk, but if they deny without good reason IG would be up their asses quicker than a Speedy Gonzalez suppository, especially if the end result means lost leave days or if there was a true emergency on the soldiers side.
It takes a LOT to prove you are absolutely necessary at all times, every single day.
Leave actually isn't a right, but a privilege. Any time off in the military is a privilege.
That said, I was half-jesting when I said Congress wouldn't renew the NDAA at some point. I say half-jest, because I don't think that would happen, but I also wouldn't put it past our lovely congress-critters to use the military as a weapon to hold the country hostage.
It's not like they haven't set a pattern of damaging the country with their obstructionism.
Leave is a right, granted by the Federal government. Block leave exists so people can use their leave. If a soldier loses their use or lose days, commanders can and should get their asses chewed. Extended weekends, living off post, leaving your local area, and being able to drive are all privileges. Leave is an absolute Congressionally mandated right. Commanders can decide to deny based on mission status or if the soldier is a flight risk, but if they deny without good reason IG would be up their asses quicker than a Speedy Gonzalez suppository, especially if the end result means lost leave days or if there was a true emergency on the soldiers side.
It takes a LOT to prove you are absolutely necessary at all times, every single day.
You're right, I'm wrong.
OPM's regulations at 5 CFR 353.208 implementing the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) state that an employee performing service with the uniformed services must be permitted, upon request, to use any accrued annual leave, military leave, earned compensatory time off for travel, or accrued sick leave (consistent with the statutory and regulatory criteria for using sick leave), during such service. An employee is entitled to use annual leave, military leave, earned compensatory time off for travel, or sick leave intermittently with leave without pay while on active duty or active/inactive duty training.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Leave actually isn't a right, but a privilege. Any time off in the military is a privilege.
That said, I was half-jesting when I said Congress wouldn't renew the NDAA at some point. I say half-jest, because I don't think that would happen, but I also wouldn't put it past our lovely congress-critters to use the military as a weapon to hold the country hostage.
It's not like they haven't set a pattern of damaging the country with their obstructionism.
Leave is a right, granted by the Federal government. Block leave exists so people can use their leave. If a soldier loses their use or lose days, commanders can and should get their asses chewed. Extended weekends, living off post, leaving your local area, and being able to drive are all privileges. Leave is an absolute Congressionally mandated right. Commanders can decide to deny based on mission status or if the soldier is a flight risk, but if they deny without good reason IG would be up their asses quicker than a Speedy Gonzalez suppository, especially if the end result means lost leave days or if there was a true emergency on the soldiers side.
It takes a LOT to prove you are absolutely necessary at all times, every single day.
Yeah, you are allowed to accrue enough leave that you should never, ever hit use-or-lose. It would take, IIRC, over two years of taking zero leave to max out your balance, and every year soldiers are allowed block leave (usually twice a year when in garrison). Now, taking leave when you wish to is a privilege...it may wind up meaning you take a full month or something in the fall when you don't really want to, but you will get your leave.
EDIT: In fact, hitting a use-or-lose balance is usually when commanders stop asking and start telling you to go on leave, because they absolutely get their asses chewed if soldiers they're responsible for wind up losing leave.
It is an outdated notion since back in those days everyone could shoot a musket and didn't require much other training to be a grunt. So it actually made sense to raise armies for a couple of years then disband and reform them as necessary.
The folks who survived Valley Forge would probably like to have a word about that, but that word wouldn't really relate to the Supreme Court.
On Election Day, my girlfriend drove from the county we were working in to one with massive lines to hand out water and food to those waiting to vote.
The thought of doing that in July... *shudder*
You, uh, weren't doing that in connection with the campaign, were you?
I know we've kind of moved on, but I just saw this and for the record: It wasn't organized by the campaign.
I don't know if the campaign actually sanctioned any handouts anywhere, but they certainly didn't in the county where I was working. :-p
PAD ID - 328,762,218
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
While I was voting last, water in the lines was provided by the supervisor of elections and distributed by the election office staff. It would't go well for the elections supervisor if someone died in line in a Florida election.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
While I was voting last, water in the lines was provided by the supervisor of elections and distributed by the election office staff. It would't go well for the elections supervisor if someone died in line in a Florida election.
As far as I am aware, it is not illegal anywhere to provide food or water to voters per se, or else a husband sharing his water bottle with his wife while waiting in line would be breaking the law. Anywhere that such a law is on the books, the desire to manipulate the outcome of the election is an essential element of the crime.
So an election official distributing water to any and all precincts where the wait is more than 30 minutes long isn't going to get in trouble. A field organizer from the Obama campaign doing the same thing could probably be prosecuted for violating the law because unless he is a total fucking idiot, he'll target his resources to those precincts with higher Democratic Performance indices.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
That was the point I was making, yes.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
So I really kind of want Aereo to win this but that's mostly an unreasonable love of the weird legalistic work around.
I don't think they have a prayer though.
Also of note is a case on Patent law and some patents not being specific enough. I need to find more info on it but that sounds like a case I want to come out that way. So much.
Yeah, based on what I understand, Aereo likely won't win. Hell, with a better set of Intellectual Property laws, I get the feeling that Aereo probably wouldn't have a shot at winning. As much as I dislike some aspects of the current laws and the fact that most of the major networks try passing off way too much shit as entertainment, I'm okay if Aereo doesn't win.
So I probably should update the OP and title for 2014. Anyone got a list of interesting cases coming before the court this year, that they would like to share?
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
What's the difference between this and an hooking your antenna up yourself?
Like, the charge by the networks is that Aereo is getting paid to retransmit their copyrighted property?
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
What's the difference between this and an hooking your antenna up yourself?
Like, the charge by the networks is that Aereo is getting paid to retransmit their copyrighted property?
Correct. Remember that cable TV started out as communal antennas that would be set up in an optimal location for a community.
Aereo is arguing that because they give you an individual antenna from a pool instead of having one big antenna, they're not actually retransmitting. They've won in the Second Circuit thanks to the Cablevision ruling, but a similar case in the Ninth has been going the opposite direction - the courts there have ruled that the microantenna pool is no different from a single communal antenna.
So I really kind of want Aereo to win this but that's mostly an unreasonable love of the weird legalistic work around.
I don't think they have a prayer though.
Also of note is a case on Patent law and some patents not being specific enough. I need to find more info on it but that sounds like a case I want to come out that way. So much.
So I really kind of want Aereo to win this but that's mostly an unreasonable love of the weird legalistic work around.
I don't think they have a prayer though.
Also of note is a case on Patent law and some patents not being specific enough. I need to find more info on it but that sounds like a case I want to come out that way. So much.
They might. They've made it this far.
They made it this far mainly because they were in a circuit where there was a ruling that basically forced the courts to have to view their antenna system as fundamentally different from a communal antenna. In other courts where that ruling had no force, the courts have been ruling that there is no real difference.
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
What's the difference between this and an hooking your antenna up yourself?
Like, the charge by the networks is that Aereo is getting paid to retransmit their copyrighted property?
Correct. Remember that cable TV started out as communal antennas that would be set up in an optimal location for a community.
Aereo is arguing that because they give you an individual antenna from a pool instead of having one big antenna, they're not actually retransmitting. They've won in the Second Circuit thanks to the Cablevision ruling, but a similar case in the Ninth has been going the opposite direction - the courts there have ruled that the microantenna pool is no different from a single communal antenna.
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
What's the difference between this and an hooking your antenna up yourself?
Like, the charge by the networks is that Aereo is getting paid to retransmit their copyrighted property?
Correct. Remember that cable TV started out as communal antennas that would be set up in an optimal location for a community.
Aereo is arguing that because they give you an individual antenna from a pool instead of having one big antenna, they're not actually retransmitting. They've won in the Second Circuit thanks to the Cablevision ruling, but a similar case in the Ninth has been going the opposite direction - the courts there have ruled that the microantenna pool is no different from a single communal antenna.
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
What's the difference between this and an hooking your antenna up yourself?
Like, the charge by the networks is that Aereo is getting paid to retransmit their copyrighted property?
Correct. Remember that cable TV started out as communal antennas that would be set up in an optimal location for a community.
Aereo is arguing that because they give you an individual antenna from a pool instead of having one big antenna, they're not actually retransmitting. They've won in the Second Circuit thanks to the Cablevision ruling, but a similar case in the Ninth has been going the opposite direction - the courts there have ruled that the microantenna pool is no different from a single communal antenna.
FilmOn X contends that it does not perform publicly because FilmOn X facilitates a one-to-one relationship between a single mini-antenna and a viewer of Plaintiffs’ programs via an admittedly complex technological process. First, this is a charitable description of FilmOn X’s arrangement; while each user may have an assigned antenna and hard-drive directory temporarily, the mini-antennas are networked together so that a single tuner server and router, video encoder, and distribution endpoint can communicate with them all. The television signal is captured by FilmOn X and passes through FilmOn X’s single electronic transmission process of aggregating servers and electronic equipment. This system, through which any member of the public who clicks on the link for the video feed, is hardly akin to an individual user stringing up a television antenna on the roof…
Second, the aggregation of several new kinds of technology does not avoid the Copyright Act because Congress intended “device or process” in the Transmit Clause to include ”all kinds of equipment for reproducing or amplifying sounds or visual images, any sort of transmitting apparatus, any type of electronic retrieval system, and any other techniques and systems not yet in use or even invented.” … FilmOn X, which is a commercial service retransmitting Plaintiffs’ television performances, is in no meaningful way different from cable television companies, whose relationship with broadcasters such as Plaintiffs was the primary motivation for the 1976 Act’s enactment.
This is precious, if you know the story of Scalia's kid who Bush recess appointed (also: was a lobbyist out to destroy the regulations he was appointed to oversee, unsurprisingly).
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Haha fuck you Scalia.
It's a bullshit attempt to curb the President's power because Obama.
Senate in session my ass, a single senator went in every three days and pounded the gavel and then said "The Senate is in session" and then walked out, during the time period they're talking about. That's not a Senate in session that's a Senate in denial.
A federal appeals court has struck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, which prohibited Internet providers from blocking or prioritizing Web traffic.
The decision on Tuesday is the latest in a lengthy legal battle over whether the FCC can regulate the Internet. In an opinion written by Judge David Tatel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the network neutrality rules contradicted a previous FCC decision that put broadband companies beyond its regulatory reach.
"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers," Tatel wrote, "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."
At stake here is an Internet provider's ability to charge Web companies such as Netflix for better service, which public interest advocates say may harm consumers.
Apparently this was just a panel of a few judges from the court, so the FCC can appeal to the full court before it hits the SCOTUS, but still pretty worrying I think.
The obvious option would be to go nuclear and declare ISPs a "common carrier" like they should have done anyway. People on the pro-neutrality side have been complaining about the FCC's legal basis for the decision ever since they made it.
@shryke, where are you seeing the bit about it being a panel of judges?
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
A federal appeals court has struck down the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, which prohibited Internet providers from blocking or prioritizing Web traffic.
The decision on Tuesday is the latest in a lengthy legal battle over whether the FCC can regulate the Internet. In an opinion written by Judge David Tatel, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the network neutrality rules contradicted a previous FCC decision that put broadband companies beyond its regulatory reach.
"Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers," Tatel wrote, "the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."
At stake here is an Internet provider's ability to charge Web companies such as Netflix for better service, which public interest advocates say may harm consumers.
Apparently this was just a panel of a few judges from the court, so the FCC can appeal to the full court before it hits the SCOTUS, but still pretty worrying I think.
Pretty obvious how it would go if it hit this SCOTUS as well.
The DC Circuit is such a bunch of nutbars. Which is why McConnell was doing everything in his power to keep the President from actually filling it out.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The obvious option would be to go nuclear and declare ISPs a "common carrier" like they should have done anyway. People on the pro-neutrality side have been complaining about the FCC's legal basis for the decision ever since they made it.
Seriously, it's unbelievably incompetent that the FCC ruled that ISPs are not a common carrier and then wrote regulations like they were. And now we're stuck with it for who knows how long since they can't get any changes through congress.
The obvious option would be to go nuclear and declare ISPs a "common carrier" like they should have done anyway. People on the pro-neutrality side have been complaining about the FCC's legal basis for the decision ever since they made it.
Seriously, it's unbelievably incompetent that the FCC ruled that ISPs are not a common carrier and then wrote regulations like they were. And now we're stuck with it for who knows how long since they can't get any changes through congress.
Actually, we're not stuck with it because the court also ruled that the FCC does have statutory authority to regulate ISPs under Title II. So there's no need to wait for Congress at all.
The obvious option would be to go nuclear and declare ISPs a "common carrier" like they should have done anyway. People on the pro-neutrality side have been complaining about the FCC's legal basis for the decision ever since they made it.
Seriously, it's unbelievably incompetent that the FCC ruled that ISPs are not a common carrier and then wrote regulations like they were. And now we're stuck with it for who knows how long since they can't get any changes through congress.
Actually, we're not stuck with it because the court also ruled that the FCC does have statutory authority to regulate ISPs under Title II. So there's no need to wait for Congress at all.
Yeah, the ruling is basically "just call them common carriers. Idiots"
In June of 2012, however, the five conservative justices indicated that they are ready to blow up this arrangement, at least with respect to public sector unions. Writing for himself and his fellow conservatives in Knox v. SEIU, Justice Samuel Alito labeled the agency fees “a ‘significant impingement on First Amendment rights.’” Though the conservative justices decided not to revise the Court’s past decisions permitting agency fees in Knox, it is not hard to guess how they will decide Harris now that this issue is directly before them.
A major purpose of agency fees is to prevent non-members from free-riding off of a union. Because non-members typically receive wage increases from the collective bargaining process regardless of whether they join the union or not, past Supreme Court decisions have recognized that it is fundamentally unfair to require a union to pay for benefits provided to non-members who don’t pay a dime into the system. Worse, blowing up the agency fees arrangement could potentially set off a death spiral, where unions are forced to charge higher fees to members to make up for lost agency fees, which in turn leads more members to quit the union, which in turn leads to higher membership fees.
And yet, when the Supreme Court is done with Harris, it is overwhelmingly likely that there will be five votes to authorize non-union members to become free-riders.
Posts
Yup.
I've noticed that people outside of the military have absolutely no idea the amount of paperwork required to do the simplest shit. To go on leave, a right that service members have, you don't just ask the commander and then go sign out. You fill out a routing slip, print out your LES to show your accrued leave days, fill out a DA31 leave request form, have your supervisor to a vehicle inspection, print out your travel plans and itinerary, put it all in a folder that's reviewed and signed by your supervisor, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, XO, first sergeant, commander, sergeant major, and batallion commander. And that is considered easy.
Re-enlistments and enlistments produce hundreds of pieces of paper and take many weeks to complete. Imagine every single member of the service doing that at the exact same time?
That said, I was half-jesting when I said Congress wouldn't renew the NDAA at some point. I say half-jest, because I don't think that would happen, but I also wouldn't put it past our lovely congress-critters to use the military as a weapon to hold the country hostage.
It's not like they haven't set a pattern of damaging the country with their obstructionism.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Leave is a right, granted by the Federal government. Block leave exists so people can use their leave. If a soldier loses their use or lose days, commanders can and should get their asses chewed. Extended weekends, living off post, leaving your local area, and being able to drive are all privileges. Leave is an absolute Congressionally mandated right. Commanders can decide to deny based on mission status or if the soldier is a flight risk, but if they deny without good reason IG would be up their asses quicker than a Speedy Gonzalez suppository, especially if the end result means lost leave days or if there was a true emergency on the soldiers side.
It takes a LOT to prove you are absolutely necessary at all times, every single day.
You're right, I'm wrong.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Yeah, you are allowed to accrue enough leave that you should never, ever hit use-or-lose. It would take, IIRC, over two years of taking zero leave to max out your balance, and every year soldiers are allowed block leave (usually twice a year when in garrison). Now, taking leave when you wish to is a privilege...it may wind up meaning you take a full month or something in the fall when you don't really want to, but you will get your leave.
EDIT: In fact, hitting a use-or-lose balance is usually when commanders stop asking and start telling you to go on leave, because they absolutely get their asses chewed if soldiers they're responsible for wind up losing leave.
The folks who survived Valley Forge would probably like to have a word about that, but that word wouldn't really relate to the Supreme Court.
I know we've kind of moved on, but I just saw this and for the record: It wasn't organized by the campaign.
I don't know if the campaign actually sanctioned any handouts anywhere, but they certainly didn't in the county where I was working. :-p
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
As far as I am aware, it is not illegal anywhere to provide food or water to voters per se, or else a husband sharing his water bottle with his wife while waiting in line would be breaking the law. Anywhere that such a law is on the books, the desire to manipulate the outcome of the election is an essential element of the crime.
So an election official distributing water to any and all precincts where the wait is more than 30 minutes long isn't going to get in trouble. A field organizer from the Obama campaign doing the same thing could probably be prosecuted for violating the law because unless he is a total fucking idiot, he'll target his resources to those precincts with higher Democratic Performance indices.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Really, this is going to come down to Cablevision in the end. I have a feeling that Aereo's technological sophistry won't hold up, though.
I don't think they have a prayer though.
Also of note is a case on Patent law and some patents not being specific enough. I need to find more info on it but that sounds like a case I want to come out that way. So much.
So I probably should update the OP and title for 2014. Anyone got a list of interesting cases coming before the court this year, that they would like to share?
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
None fo the articles no it explain the issue well.
It lets you watch local TV online.
As I understand it you rent an antenna from them. That antenna then streams whatever it is tuned to over the internet, to you. High quality network tv over the interwebs.
They may have some built in DVR like functionality but I don't remember.
That conceit of "renting" the antenna is key to the patina of legality of it.
edit: Yea, they do over DVR as well. This page explains what they offer in sales pitch form.
What's the difference between this and an hooking your antenna up yourself?
Like, the charge by the networks is that Aereo is getting paid to retransmit their copyrighted property?
Correct. Remember that cable TV started out as communal antennas that would be set up in an optimal location for a community.
Aereo is arguing that because they give you an individual antenna from a pool instead of having one big antenna, they're not actually retransmitting. They've won in the Second Circuit thanks to the Cablevision ruling, but a similar case in the Ninth has been going the opposite direction - the courts there have ruled that the microantenna pool is no different from a single communal antenna.
They might. They've made it this far.
They made it this far mainly because they were in a circuit where there was a ruling that basically forced the courts to have to view their antenna system as fundamentally different from a communal antenna. In other courts where that ruling had no force, the courts have been ruling that there is no real difference.
The Supreme Court is not bound by that ruling.
So their entire case is based on sophistry.
They're technically correct.
The best kind of correct.
The DC Court basically called Aereo-style services out on it:
It's a bullshit attempt to curb the President's power because Obama.
Senate in session my ass, a single senator went in every three days and pounded the gavel and then said "The Senate is in session" and then walked out, during the time period they're talking about. That's not a Senate in session that's a Senate in denial.
Apparently this was just a panel of a few judges from the court, so the FCC can appeal to the full court before it hits the SCOTUS, but still pretty worrying I think.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
@Aioua, I checked the opinion (can be found here and it says it was before three judges, which is considered a panel and not the full court.
Also, can I say how annoyed I am when online news stories do not include a link to the opinion? Lazy reporting. Blerg.
Pretty obvious how it would go if it hit this SCOTUS as well.
Actually, we're not stuck with it because the court also ruled that the FCC does have statutory authority to regulate ISPs under Title II. So there's no need to wait for Congress at all.
Yeah, the ruling is basically "just call them common carriers. Idiots"
That's just hilarious.
Also, Citizens United. Can't forget that one.
Also They're probably about to add another to the list:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/21/3184101/supreme-court-prepares-drop-bomb-public-sector-unions-today/