4 ms·

I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Si

I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Silberman).

warfangle 13y ago
Keep in mind that Clinton also signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A few key things that this act did: - Allow for consolidation of radio stations (and thus, the meteoric rise of ClearChannel) - Allow for consolidation of telecommunications companies (and thus, almost the major phone service companies are the progeny of the Baby Bells) It also did some very good things, like requiring entrants into the data services market to interconnect with incumbents. But it also allowed telecoms to rip off the USGOV and taxpayers in extraordinary lengths (see previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021057 )
- saalweachter 13y ago
  As long as we're cataloging Clinton's sins, don't forget repealing Glass-Steagall.
slurry 13y ago
In terms of judicial politics (as opposed to legislative politics of judicial nominations), this isn't Democrats vs. Republicans. This is Clinton and Bush II nominees vs. everyone else.
saalweachter 13y ago
Fair point; just because you like a politician doesn't mean you'll like their judge or all of their decisions. Heck, maybe if the panel for this case had been an Obama, Clinton, and Reagan appointee, the Obama and Reagan appointees would have sided against the Clinton. The DC Court handles all of these big, Federal cases that make the top of HN. A President's impact on the DC Court is almost as important as their impact on the Supreme Court.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The DC Court handles all of these big, Federal cases that make the top of HN. No, it doesn't. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit handles appeals of federal regulatory agency decisions, but -- while this FCC decision is an example of those -- you don't see a lot of them make the top of HN. Most of the "big, federal" cases that make the top of HN are either: 1) criminal cases, which go to trial in the District Court in which the crime occurred, and for appeal to the Circuit Court in which that District Court is located (which might happen to be the DC Circuit if the trial was originally in the District Court for the District of Columbia, but usually that's not the case); or 2) coyright cases, which again go through any of the District Courts for trial, and the corresponding Circuit Court for appeals; or 3) patent cases, which go to trial in the District Court in which the crime occurred, and for appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal (not DC) Circuit. While the DC Circuit is very important, its not that commonly involved in cases that make the front page of HN.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Silberman). Note that Silberman's dissent was because Silberman thought the whole Open Internet Order should have been struck down (including the disclosure requirements), while Rogers and Tatel only thought that that the requirements they characterize as "common carrier" requirements (non-discrimination and non-blocking) should be struck down. So this wasn't "Clinton appointees vote against FCC, Reagan appointee backs FCC".

I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Silberman).

warfangle 13y ago

Keep in mind that Clinton also signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. A few key things that this act did: - Allow for consolidation of radio stations (and thus, the meteoric rise of ClearChannel) - Allow for consolidation of telecommunications companies (and thus, almost the major phone service companies are the progeny of the Baby Bells) It also did some very good things, like requiring entrants into the data services market to interconnect with incumbents. But it also allowed telecoms to rip off the USGOV and taxpayers in extraordinary lengths (see previous discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7021057 )

saalweachter 13y ago
As long as we're cataloging Clinton's sins, don't forget repealing Glass-Steagall.

slurry 13y ago

In terms of judicial politics (as opposed to legislative politics of judicial nominations), this isn't Democrats vs. Republicans. This is Clinton and Bush II nominees vs. everyone else.

saalweachter 13y ago

Fair point; just because you like a politician doesn't mean you'll like their judge or all of their decisions. Heck, maybe if the panel for this case had been an Obama, Clinton, and Reagan appointee, the Obama and Reagan appointees would have sided against the Clinton. The DC Court handles all of these big, Federal cases that make the top of HN. A President's impact on the DC Court is almost as important as their impact on the Supreme Court.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The DC Court handles all of these big, Federal cases that make the top of HN. No, it doesn't. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit handles appeals of federal regulatory agency decisions, but -- while this FCC decision is an example of those -- you don't see a lot of them make the top of HN. Most of the "big, federal" cases that make the top of HN are either: 1) criminal cases, which go to trial in the District Court in which the crime occurred, and for appeal to the Circuit Court in which that District Court is located (which might happen to be the DC Circuit if the trial was originally in the District Court for the District of Columbia, but usually that's not the case); or 2) coyright cases, which again go through any of the District Courts for trial, and the corresponding Circuit Court for appeals; or 3) patent cases, which go to trial in the District Court in which the crime occurred, and for appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal (not DC) Circuit. While the DC Circuit is very important, its not that commonly involved in cases that make the front page of HN.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I believe the two judges (Rogers and Tatel) that struck down the FCC's regulations were Clinton nominees. The one who dissented in part was a Reagan nominee (Silberman). Note that Silberman's dissent was because Silberman thought the whole Open Internet Order should have been struck down (including the disclosure requirements), while Rogers and Tatel only thought that that the requirements they characterize as "common carrier" requirements (non-discrimination and non-blocking) should be struck down. So this wasn't "Clinton appointees vote against FCC, Reagan appointee backs FCC".