doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky
If we wait for that to stop being true, it’ll just mean not doing it at all.
doing this while the Supreme Court is effectively captured by corporate interests seems risky because it could further establish court precedent
If there’s one thing the current court’s shown, it’s that precedent doesn’t mean diddly squat to the supreme court. If and when the court is ever returned to a respectable position I’m sure many of their current decisions will be overturned.
plz1@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I think you are blending your facts/timeline. Ajit Pai’s FCC struck them down for that (dubious) reason. This upcoming vote is to undo that damage and revert back to what the FCC under Obama put in place.
MossyFeathers@pawb.social 7 months ago
I looked into it and I was wrong about it being a law, but it was regulated under title 1 regulations, which the FCC claimed let them enforce net neutrality. That got struck down in court, which lead to the FCC regulating it under title 2, which was removed by Pai and is now being reinstated by Burden’s FCC.
plz1@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Title 2 is right. It makes more sense to utilize that as well.