Hey, he’s talking, and that’s good. He didn’t just drive by and say some stupid shit then leave.
Being wrong is not a sin.
That’s not what the new law is. Have you read the FCC’s new net neutrality order? It’s not a simple repeal at all. The new regulation states explicitly: “States may not pre-empt us.” That is an express invocation of pre-emption doctrine.
They expressly banned states from imposing regulations, and in fact imposes positive restrictions, which is certainly doing something.
Your town’s litter does not affect interstate commerce in a significant enough way.
Why are so many posters here so mean? I mean, I hate to use such a simple term. But there’s just so much meanness and bullying. Is it because your view is in the majority here, so you’re comfortable doing it?
They don’t believe that you are arguing in good faith, or are capable of absorbing new information and modifying your world view.
Prove them wrong and folks will come around.
Sorry man I have zero interest in engaging. All trump supporters are racists, science deniers or bigots or all three. I have nothing in common with them. You go ahead though you are a kind person and I respect that. I just think you are wasting your time, they are incapable of change, they are just too stupid. I have washed my hands of them.
I can see your point and would agree that I may have overstated the argument regarding potential impact on interstate commerce, as a trigger for dormant commerce protections. I will circle back a bit when I research some more supreme court/2d circuit cases (or “Talking points”, as someone here dismissively said). But for now, I would draw a distinction: existing deals would be implicated by each state adopting its own net neutrality rules. Not simply hypothetical deals. Does that change things for you at all?
However, it’s not limited to preventing economic protectionism. The dormant commerce clause is most robust in preventing economic protectionism, and indeed that is when the Supreme Court employs it most aggressively. But the point is not just to preclude states from shutting out competition. It can also be employed when interstate commerce is stifled substantially. But as you point out, defining “stifling interstate commerce” is hard to do, and I may have too broad a conception.
No, they’re not.
No. That has no legal significance at all. Inconvenience to a corporation does not result in unconstitutionality.
And again, there is no way that your example involves stifling interstate commerce. It doesn’t prevent Netflix or Comcast from selling goods or services across state lines. It merely imposes regulations on the contracts they have with consumers in the state making the law.
Again, this is EXACTLY how insurance works currently. A company like Aetna might sell insurance in both your state and mine. Our states have different insurance regulations. Mine apply to policies sold in my state, yours apply to policies sold in yours. Some companies choose to only sell policies in one state or the other.
They are.
But sometimes pointing out that we are racist, or xenophobic or otherwise flawed is the first step to correcting those flaws. And being flawed does not mean irredeemable.
I have yet to meet one who isnt.
Well, this part I think is not 100% right. Certainly, creating enough inconvenience, especially without good cause, can be an impermissible burden. We see this with abortion for example. Requiring women to go to 10 doctors to get OK permission slips is impermissible. Similarly, burdening companies excessively could theoretically be an affront to interstate commerce.
But generally. I see what you are saying and I think you have raised enough concerns with my argument regarding the dormant commerce clause’s “substantial interference” prong that I need to think a little bit (and more importantly, look up some cases I’ve forgotten about) to see if I can draw a meaningful distinction to the insurance law context. Obviously, the one that jumps out to me right now is that the Internet is a unique channel of interstate commerce, but the insurance market is similarly global in scope. So I will think a bit and hunt down some cases/case studies --apologies for the slow response.
Auto emissions are another example of States placing restrictions on commerce that exceed or differ from Federal regulation.
Then say that. I’ve met a few who aren’t. I think the reasons they supported him were wrong, a misguided “lesser of two evils” approach, and I hate that they voted for him. But they’re not all racist bigot science haters.
Note that where the feds place a “floor” on regulations, its often constitutionally acceptable under pre-emption doctrine for states to set additional limits or regulations. The theory is that additional limits in some contexts do not interfere with the feds’ objective, or impermissibly burden interstate commerce. Another theory is that the feds implicitly condone these additional limits imposed by states.
But that pre-emption principle/rule does not apply where the feds make clear they are not setting a floor, but a ceiling as well, on regulation. The FCC has tried to do that with net neutrality – set a floor and a ceiling, by saying that no net neutrality regulation can stand. So, this situation is meaningfully different from the emission one you cite.
The FCC’s position is inherently self defeating though, in that it explicitly stated that it lacked the authority to regulate telecoms in this way… if it lacks that authority, it certainly lacks the authority to prevent all states from making laws about it.
Hell, on some level, you could even go to the 10th amendment for that.
The FCC is trying here to have some kind of nonsensical self contradictory position… and in doing so it’s creating a dramatically more significant expansion of federal power, trying to say that it essentially has power over everything, and that only the federal government can really regulate anything.
It’s authoritarian cronyism dressed up in a thin veil of psudo-libertarianism. With a fig leaf of supposed aims toward “small government”, they are in fact suggesting an immensely more powerful federal government at the expense of states’ rights.
See I would say all their excuses are bullshit and not give them the benefit of the doubt. My presumption is that any Trump voter is lying when they say they were “conflicted”. I just assume when they voted for the racist, bigot, science denying guy they did so willingly and because that’s what they wanted. Seems pretty clear to me. And if they are not openly apologizing after what 18 months of this crook then… well you know the rest.
Shrug. Again kudos to you for being able to talk to those people. I am have no patience for them.
So do you think I am lying to you about them, or that I’m unable to tell they were lying to me?
Well the the latter of course! I wouldn’t accuse you of lying.
I don’t truly know their thoughts, so of course it’s possible, but if they could fool me, someone could’ve fooled them.
I’m sorry for derailing things, and I don’t mean to single you out and just pick a fight about this, thanks for indulging me in a civil way. I live in South Carolina, I don’t have to look hard to find Trump supporters, and plenty of them are somewhere in that spectrum of racists and bigots and anti-science people and they’ve got the bumper stickers to proudly proclaim it. But I do know people don’t deserve those assumptions, so it’s a personal pet peeve when it happens.
I can give some of them the benefit of the doubt. That benefit ended about 6 months in though.
If they supported him after that then the descriptions you put out fit.
Cool. We are good. To be honest I am also pretty selfish and in a position of privilege, I mean, I am in the bay area, in the entertainment industry. I am surrounded by nothing but blue as far as the eye can see. So I can easily turn my back on Trump supporters , its literally less than 5% of the people I encounter. Again pretty selfish of me, so its fair of you to call me on it.