Comment by not2b
1 year ago
It would be more correct to say that they have officially interpreted a current law (the Telephone Consumer Protection Act) to clarify that AI-Generated voices in robocalls violate that law, which seems reasonable.
1 year ago
It would be more correct to say that they have officially interpreted a current law (the Telephone Consumer Protection Act) to clarify that AI-Generated voices in robocalls violate that law, which seems reasonable.
In other words, the headline should say "FCC Rules AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Illegal"
Ok, we've made it rule above. Thanks!
This ruling just ended a bunch of businesses and startups, including a startup by Stanford founders
> including a startup by Stanford founders
Is this a humorous reference? Or is this supposed to be notable for some reason?
that's great
[flagged]
Activist? You clearly don't have the same definition of activist that I do. Half the problem with these sorts of conversations is there is no agreement on definitions.
Please don't interpret my comment to mean that Supreme Court decisions can't be criticized, I just don't find the "activist" accusation to be particularly insightful.
Citizen’s United was “yeah, leaning pretty hard here.”
Flipping the hours d’ouvres table over on Roe v. Wade, a tense but stable compromise, that’s verging on activist. You don’t go knocking over fragile, workable standoffs that have held longer than an Ulster cease-fire if you can help it as a senior jurist.
It’s a pretty neo-neocon consensus to put it charitably.
It’s still the highest court in the land and it’s still binding, but I hope any thinking person is hoping for more a more“spirited but healthy” tension between major worldviews.
8 replies →
They have been hunting for cases to pursue their political agenda. It's probably the most activist court we've ever had. What is your definition of activist?
5 replies →
Usually "activist" just means "not in agreement with my political views".
The Federalist Society, a political entity to alter the judicial branch, picked Neil Gorsuch while grooming many other federal judges who are then put in place by politicians. If you were put in place by activists, doesn’t that make you an activist judge?
10 replies →
the current court solidified itself as an activist court by taking on a litany of controversial, yet already decided cases one after another that were all lined up by the same organization that not only lobbied for their placement on the court, but even went so far as to line up a billionaire buddy system to make them more comfortable financially so they wouldn't retire from the court during a democratic administration.
I think it's pretty unlikely that the Chevron doctrine would be overturned completely. The specifics of the case before the Court involve a case where the NMFS has interpreted a fisheries act to require fishers to pay the salaries of government monitors, simply because the act does not specify who should pay the salaries. The more reasonable objection is whether "reasonable interpretation" under Chevron should be limited to prevent the creation of affirmative powers out of thin air. As Wikipedia puts it:
> Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
The initial "overrule Chevron" seems like a DITF [1] and the latter is probably what the plaintiffs are hoping to achieve. Granted, I find it hard to trust a Court that overruled PP v. Casey, but most of this Court's other rulings, at least, have not been as extreme.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
Usually I challenge people when they call a court stacked or activist, because it’s just so rarely true: this is as close as you’ll (hopefully) see to a 1-bit high court.
It’s the masterpiece, the magnum opus of the Magnus of parliamentary politics. Nicollo Machiavelli doesn’t have shit on Mitch McConnell at that chess game.
I’m pretty indifferent to which color bumper-sticker late capitalism is sporting when it pushes the newest round of formerly “looking forward to better” working people below the waterline, it’s not a partisan thing.
The other team have plenty who match Mitch on evilness, but zero on skill.
what authority do they have to set a legal precedent?
It's not a legal precedent, it's an interpretation of a law that they are mandated to enforce.
the case from the fishermen currently in Supreme Court, precisely will nullify unelected agency officials from interpreting laws like this to legislate, then enforce, rules outside of the mandates and powers granted by the populace
how can the FCC enforce laws?
1 reply →