They seem to have found the right landing spot on a couple of decisions. There are a couple of pieces i would take issue with that will articulate that in coming days. Iser one issue reported that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Commissioner orielly as i read the piece, it is not a proactive preemption structure. It still allows challenges to states where the item would be in conflict with our rules. It will lead to more statebystate challenges, casebycase challenges, than the overall, overarching one i was hoping for. Because what you are going to see is, a number of states have already acted in doing certain things i disagree with, you will see others jump in, and having 50 different states pull us in different directions, some with Net Neutrality one way, some with Net Neutrality another way, is not what the structure should be. Not interstate commerce. Its why we have an interstate commerce clause, and it is not something they have expertise in. Structure,nitio
House, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Crated by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local or cable satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Peter and Michael Orielly is one of five commissioners on the federal communications commission, and he is our guest tonight on the communicators. Welcome. I want to get your Immediate Reaction to the Net Neutrality case. Commissioner orielly im still digesting the decision from the court read it is quite lengthy. From the court. It is quite lengthy. But im generally pleased. They seem to have found the right landing spot on a couple of decisions. There are a couple of pieces i would take issue with that will articulate that in coming days. Peter well, one of those issues that has been reported already is that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Commissioner orielly as i read the piece, its not a proactive
Your local cable or satellite provider. Speech than, your unfiltered view of government. Host Michael Orielly is one of five commissioners on the federal Communications Commission and he is our guest this week on the communicators. Welcome back. Commissioner orielly, its only been about an hour since the court decided the Net Neutrality case. Want to get your immediate reaction. Guest in fairness unstressed digesting the item, the decision from the court. Its quite lengthy. Im generally pleased. They seem to have found the right landing spot in a number of decisions. Our couple pieces i probably would take issue with them and probably articulate that in the coming days. Host one of the issues thats been reported is that it doesnt preempt states from doing their own thing. Guest as i read it its not a proactive preemption structure. It still allows the commission to go forward and child in states with the item would be in conflict with our rules. Its going to lead to more statebystate c
Doctrine or keep it. Chief Justice Roberts we hear argument first this morning ase 221219, relentless versus the department of commerce. Mr. Martinez. Oral argument of roman marti on behalf of the petitioners martinez mr. Chief e, and may it please the court for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation it should be overruled for three ass. First, chevron violates the constitution article iii empowers judges to what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal ates using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates interpretive auory from courts to to adopt inferior agencycourts constructions that are issued fotical or policy reasons. In doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of cong it mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. And by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens individual liberty. Chevron allates the apa. The most straightforward
Your argument case 221219, leless versus the department of commerce. Marston martin as. Mister chief justice, may it please the court. For too long chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined stato inrpretation. It should be overruled for three reasons, first, cheon violates the constitution. Article 3 a pers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal statutes using their stnd independent judgment. Chevron undermines that du. It reallocate interpreti authorities from courts to agencies and forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. In doingso, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. It mandates judicial biaan encourages agency overreach. By removing key checks on ecutive power it threatens individual liberty. Chevron also violates the apa, the most straightforward reading of section 706 requires review of legal questions. Congre put constitutional and statutory