4 ms·

According to Mozilla's legal filing, they are claiming it violates the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the FCC's decis

According to Mozilla's legal filing, they are claiming it violates the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because the FCC's decision was...wait for it..."arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion". Sounds like they are basically throwing a temper tantrum and grasping at straws. Their argument essentially amounts to "We believe this ruling is so bad that it can't possibly be allowed to go through. This is a clear violation of their statutory mandate." I find arguments like this truly astounding because no one was claiming they were violating federal law before they implemented the net neutrality regulations. To me, this is eerily similar to the recent DACA ruling where the federal judge required that DACA must be kept in force for the time being while everything is being sorted out. But the reason the judge gave was pretty telling - "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so." That sounds pretty much exactly like the argument we are seeing here. In fact, the author of the CNN article I grabbed that judge's quote from also uses the same language about Trump's move on DACA being "arbitrary and capricious". Searching these phrases online you will find this all relates to the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. There are two types of judicial review under this act - the arbitrary and capricious review and the substantial evidence review. Obviously, based on these filings, this would fall under the former. That does require a reasonable explanation for the decision. However, given the nature of this topic the justification is obvious - that a huge portion of the country supports the elimination of DACA. That a judge would ignore this is unconscionable. The only other option under this law is to go after the decision as a violation of the separation of powers. However, if it is ruled as such, that also means that Obama's 2012 creation of the DACA program was also a violation of the separation of powers and thus the DACA program would need to be shut down. Whether you are in favor of net neutrality or against it - in favor of DACA or not, the law needs to be the law. All of this judicial nonsense reeks of political games. And every time judges uphold stuff like this based on these ridiculous, spurious arguments, the Rule of Law continues to degrade and our nation suffers.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
civilitty 9y ago
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 is the law. Period. It is a core foundation for the modern regulatory framework in the United States, including how fast regulations can be changed and the procedures that need to be followed, regardless of the agency's Congressional mandate. The reason judges are using the law to overturn executive actions so much more than before is because no previous administration has been so arbitrary and capricious in their actions.
- turc1656 9y ago
  If you are referring to DACA - it's not arbitrary and capricious considering this was a hot button election issue and a large number of Americans support this change. If you are referring to net neutrality, Ajit Pai gave months of notice that this was being discussed (so it was not on a whim) and provided a lengthy explanation as to the reasons the decision was made. You might disagree with the reasons, and that's totally fine and understandable. But to call it arbitrary and capricious is kind of ridiculous. It's most likely simply a political standpoint you don't support and thus want to have the courts interject in the hopes they agree with you and find the reasoning flawed. This is legislating from the bench, because it effectively allows them to declare a line of political reasoning insufficient. It is a particularly insidious practice that effectively allows federal judges to step in and override something they disagree with and it's something they've gotten into a really nasty habit of doing far too often. I will taper my argument with one point - if the recent investigation into Pai that was just announced yields any hard evidence of corruption or anything like that then I would support overturning this ruling on the grounds that his vote was influenced by outside forces. He should then be removed (and possibly go to jail depending on what the evidence shows) and the FCC could vote on this issue again with a new 5th member and we would see if they vote in the same way or not.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > If you are referring to DACA - it's not arbitrary and capricious considering this was a hot button election issue and a large number of Americans support this change. The legal standard of "arbitrary and capricious" has to do with adherence to the substantive and procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, not to the degree of popular support.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
>...this is a clear violation of their statutory mandate." >I find arguments like this truly astounding because no one was claiming they were violating federal law before they implemented the net neutrality regulations First, if they are in clear violation of their mandate, they are breaking the law. Second, yes, there were people claiming they were breaking the law before the 2015 net neutrality regulations. They were proved correct in the court, which led to the 2015 regulations. This fight has been going on in the courts for over a decade, and there have been numerous attempts to pass a new law dealing with it. Unless a new law is passed, the decision has always been with the courts.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

civilitty 9y ago

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 is the law. Period. It is a core foundation for the modern regulatory framework in the United States, including how fast regulations can be changed and the procedures that need to be followed, regardless of the agency's Congressional mandate. The reason judges are using the law to overturn executive actions so much more than before is because no previous administration has been so arbitrary and capricious in their actions.

turc1656 9y ago
If you are referring to DACA - it's not arbitrary and capricious considering this was a hot button election issue and a large number of Americans support this change. If you are referring to net neutrality, Ajit Pai gave months of notice that this was being discussed (so it was not on a whim) and provided a lengthy explanation as to the reasons the decision was made. You might disagree with the reasons, and that's totally fine and understandable. But to call it arbitrary and capricious is kind of ridiculous. It's most likely simply a political standpoint you don't support and thus want to have the courts interject in the hopes they agree with you and find the reasoning flawed. This is legislating from the bench, because it effectively allows them to declare a line of political reasoning insufficient. It is a particularly insidious practice that effectively allows federal judges to step in and override something they disagree with and it's something they've gotten into a really nasty habit of doing far too often. I will taper my argument with one point - if the recent investigation into Pai that was just announced yields any hard evidence of corruption or anything like that then I would support overturning this ruling on the grounds that his vote was influenced by outside forces. He should then be removed (and possibly go to jail depending on what the evidence shows) and the FCC could vote on this issue again with a new 5th member and we would see if they vote in the same way or not.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If you are referring to DACA - it's not arbitrary and capricious considering this was a hot button election issue and a large number of Americans support this change. The legal standard of "arbitrary and capricious" has to do with adherence to the substantive and procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, not to the degree of popular support.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>...this is a clear violation of their statutory mandate." >I find arguments like this truly astounding because no one was claiming they were violating federal law before they implemented the net neutrality regulations First, if they are in clear violation of their mandate, they are breaking the law. Second, yes, there were people claiming they were breaking the law before the 2015 net neutrality regulations. They were proved correct in the court, which led to the 2015 regulations. This fight has been going on in the courts for over a decade, and there have been numerous attempts to pass a new law dealing with it. Unless a new law is passed, the decision has always been with the courts.