Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AT&T -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Scott who wrote (2647)	7/15/1999 5:33:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4298

Agree, counselor. Courts shouldn't shape policy, but sometimes they do as we have seen in our country's history. Roe v. Wade is a prime example. IMHO, the 9th Cir. will interpret the law as rational minds see it -- open access along cable lines is the jx of Congress & the FCC. As for as my comment relating to J. Panner's decision, I was merely speculating why he ruled the way he did. Recall that in his opinion he reserved judgment of the prudence of the franchising authority imposing open access, but somehow concluded on summary judgment that as a matter of law the local franchising authority was entitled to impose it. IMHO, the forgoing analysis implies J. Panner knew what he was doing; he knew the judgment would surprise many & would most certainly be appealed. I cannot see how he could fail to realize that as a matter of law, he decision was in direct conflict with Federal communications law & violative of the Commerce Clause. Perhaps you might be able to provide some other rationale for his decision -- or are the people in Oregon really that clueless of authority of the Federal government in this area?