Quote:
It would be interesting toknow why this "activist" judge ruled this way. You can't blame te FCC for this action, it had already stated that they were going to exempt the Internet but the judge pretty much told them that they couldn't. Now they need to have a vote on the subject and the left on the board won't vote on it. I wouldn't blame the govt per say, but I would blame those in teh Dem party that you support for not allowing a vote to take place to amend the act.
I don't know where to begin with this... A little bit about U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. She was first appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1984. This is from her official biography.
Quote:Judge Kotelly was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure from June 2000 through May 2002, and in May 2002 Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Judge Kotelly to serve as Presiding Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , which is a 7-year appointment.
Clearly, the conservatives have every reason to hate her with friends like Reagan and Rhenquist.
The FEC. NOT the FCC.
The judge ruled on the law passed by Congress. She ruled that the FEC failed to implement it as it was intended. Hardly, a radical ruling. THis is a nice summary
Quote: In a case pending since Spring (Docket No. 02-1984), District Court Judge Kollar-Kotelly found mostly in favor of plaintiffs-Congressmen Shays and Meehan in their challenge to various of the rules promulgated by the FEC to implement McCain-Feingold (Shays-Meehan). The judge found some key rules to be defective under one of two prongs of the standard review set out in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 830 (l984): failure to follow clearly expressed Congressional intent, or to adopt a permissible construction of the statute. She held other rules to have been adopted with inadequately reasoned justification, or with inadequate notice, in violation of the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court, having reached these conclusions, declined to specifically enjoin the enforcement of the rules, but instead remanded them to the Federal Election Commission for further action consistent with the opinion.
http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/articles/20040920.cfm Or see my link to the ENTIRE ruling above.
The FCC(sic) can't vote to amend the act. The act was passed by Congress and only Congress can amend it. The FEC can only write the rules for enforcement. I haven't seen anyone in Congress attempting to bring FECA (the law) back to be amended so clearly you can't blame the Dems for this one.
The only thing the Dems on the FEC are blocking is a vote to appeal the decision. Hardly a radical thing to do. It would be a rather large waste of money. If you are a judge and the person that wrote a law says it means one thing and someone else says it means something else, who are you more likely to believe? It is NOT an activist judge that takes the word of the lawmaker as the most likely intent of the law.