Forget the debate, the Supreme Court has just declared the hunt for regulators
As THE country reels Since A presidential debate that LEFT No A look GOOD, THE Supreme Court has dived In with What could be A of THE most consecutive the decisions he has Never do, In THE context of THE technology industry. By inversion A 40 years decision, THE court has open up regulators has unending interference by industry And THE whims of judges as compromise And out of touch as they are.
THE Supreme Court announcement Friday Morning that he had governed 6-3 (You know WHO vote how) has to spill Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Advice, A case Since 1984 that established A very important doctrine In federal regulations.
Federal law East by need wide, to apply as he do through SO a lot jurisdictions. Furthermore, a few laws stay on THE books For decades without modification. And SO each laws formulation — just as THE Constitution — requires interpretation, A stain propagated among all evenings In THE legal system, Since lawyers has judges has friends curae.
THE 1984 Chevron decision established that independent agencies as THE EPA, SECOND, And FCC Also to have A say In This. In do, THE decision find, In case Or THE law East ambiguous, THE courts must postpone has these agencies In their ability as experts In their fields.
As A example, think about something as THE To do the housework Water Act provide certain legal protections For swamps. WHO defines if A plot of to land account as swamps? He can't be interested evenings as heavy industry Or nature advocacy groups, Since their interpretations will likely be mutually exclusive. And What are THE odds that never mind judge gets handed over THE case has any of them skill In THE matter? Instead, In such case, THE EPA, staffed with theoretically disinterested experts on swamps, East authorized has adjust ambiguities.
All RIGHT, SO What TO DO swamps And THE EPA to have has TO DO with technology? GOOD, WHO TO DO You think defines "encryption" In law, Or " communication " "research And epileptic crisis," Or "reasonable waiting of private life”?
THE entire concept of net neutrality East perched a top THE FCC interpretation of if broadband data East A "information service" Or A "communication service," THE terms writing In THE act accountability that agency.
If THE FCC East not authorized has adjust This ambiguity In A very old law that was writing GOOD Before Today broadband And mobile networks, WHO East? Never mind court takes THE case brought by THE telecommunications industry, which hated net neutrality And would be prefer A interpretation Or THE FCC doesn't regulate them has all. And if THE industry doesn't as that courts interpretation, he gets A little more blows as THE case gets up towards — Oh, THE Supreme Court.
Interesting, REMARK Justice Helene Kagan (), that In "A fell cut " THE court had granted himself "exclusive power on each open issue — No matter how expertise driven Or policy officer — involving THE meaning of regulatory law." In other words, THE Supreme Court THE powers Currently exercised by each regulatory agency In THE country.
Techniques play For time pay disabled
For what East This SO consecutive For technology? Because THE technology industry has has been focused towards down A wave of regulatory activity directed by these the agencies, Operating In THE empty of Congress action. Due has A lack of effective federal laws In technology, agencies to have had has stage up And offer update interpretations of THE laws on THE books.
Technology leaders to have loudly And Many times request For federal laws — not agency regulations — definition And limiting their Industries. "Please," they cry, "Give We A federal confidentiality law! Pass A law on location data! Pass A Good big law about how artificial intelligence should be used!"
They know very GOOD that Congress East almost unable of who passed any of them such laws, partially because technology industry lobbyists calmly struggle them In THE background every time A with teeth East propose. You will be shocked has find out that despite A decade Or more of technology ask For these laws, little Or none to have In fact appeared! And When California pass A, they all lament: not li...
As THE country reels Since A presidential debate that LEFT No A look GOOD, THE Supreme Court has dived In with What could be A of THE most consecutive the decisions he has Never do, In THE context of THE technology industry. By inversion A 40 years decision, THE court has open up regulators has unending interference by industry And THE whims of judges as compromise And out of touch as they are.
THE Supreme Court announcement Friday Morning that he had governed 6-3 (You know WHO vote how) has to spill Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Advice, A case Since 1984 that established A very important doctrine In federal regulations.
Federal law East by need wide, to apply as he do through SO a lot jurisdictions. Furthermore, a few laws stay on THE books For decades without modification. And SO each laws formulation — just as THE Constitution — requires interpretation, A stain propagated among all evenings In THE legal system, Since lawyers has judges has friends curae.
THE 1984 Chevron decision established that independent agencies as THE EPA, SECOND, And FCC Also to have A say In This. In do, THE decision find, In case Or THE law East ambiguous, THE courts must postpone has these agencies In their ability as experts In their fields.
As A example, think about something as THE To do the housework Water Act provide certain legal protections For swamps. WHO defines if A plot of to land account as swamps? He can't be interested evenings as heavy industry Or nature advocacy groups, Since their interpretations will likely be mutually exclusive. And What are THE odds that never mind judge gets handed over THE case has any of them skill In THE matter? Instead, In such case, THE EPA, staffed with theoretically disinterested experts on swamps, East authorized has adjust ambiguities.
All RIGHT, SO What TO DO swamps And THE EPA to have has TO DO with technology? GOOD, WHO TO DO You think defines "encryption" In law, Or " communication " "research And epileptic crisis," Or "reasonable waiting of private life”?
THE entire concept of net neutrality East perched a top THE FCC interpretation of if broadband data East A "information service" Or A "communication service," THE terms writing In THE act accountability that agency.
If THE FCC East not authorized has adjust This ambiguity In A very old law that was writing GOOD Before Today broadband And mobile networks, WHO East? Never mind court takes THE case brought by THE telecommunications industry, which hated net neutrality And would be prefer A interpretation Or THE FCC doesn't regulate them has all. And if THE industry doesn't as that courts interpretation, he gets A little more blows as THE case gets up towards — Oh, THE Supreme Court.
Interesting, REMARK Justice Helene Kagan (), that In "A fell cut " THE court had granted himself "exclusive power on each open issue — No matter how expertise driven Or policy officer — involving THE meaning of regulatory law." In other words, THE Supreme Court THE powers Currently exercised by each regulatory agency In THE country.
Techniques play For time pay disabled
For what East This SO consecutive For technology? Because THE technology industry has has been focused towards down A wave of regulatory activity directed by these the agencies, Operating In THE empty of Congress action. Due has A lack of effective federal laws In technology, agencies to have had has stage up And offer update interpretations of THE laws on THE books.
Technology leaders to have loudly And Many times request For federal laws — not agency regulations — definition And limiting their Industries. "Please," they cry, "Give We A federal confidentiality law! Pass A law on location data! Pass A Good big law about how artificial intelligence should be used!"
They know very GOOD that Congress East almost unable of who passed any of them such laws, partially because technology industry lobbyists calmly struggle them In THE background every time A with teeth East propose. You will be shocked has find out that despite A decade Or more of technology ask For these laws, little Or none to have In fact appeared! And When California pass A, they all lament: not li...
What's Your Reaction?
