By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Advocacy groups have decided against appealing a court decision that struck down the Biden administration’s net neutrality rules. The groups cited concerns about the conservative majority in the Supreme Court and the current FCC, which opposes net neutrality. The legal battle centered on the FCC’s ability to classify broadband as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act, a key step for implementing common-carrier regulations. These regulations, originally established during the Obama era, prohibited practices like blocking or throttling content and paid prioritization.
Read the original article here
Net neutrality advocates, facing a seemingly inevitable defeat, have made a difficult but calculated decision: they won’t be appealing their loss in the Supreme Court. The reasoning behind this isn’t simply resignation; it’s a profound lack of trust in the institution itself. The advocates believe the current Supreme Court demonstrates a clear “hostility toward sound legal reasoning,” and this isn’t a recent revelation.
The core of the issue seems to be a perception that the Court is not applying the law objectively. Instead, the argument goes, they’re starting with their desired policy outcomes and then contorting legal arguments to justify them. It’s a disturbing accusation, suggesting that the Court is more interested in political ideology than in impartial interpretation of the law. This perspective is further fueled by observations about the justices’ backgrounds and affiliations. For example, the significant association of justices with organizations like the Federalist Society, which are known for their conservative leanings, raises questions about potential biases.
The critique extends to the perceived underlying philosophy driving the Court’s decisions. The argument suggests that conservatism, at its core, prioritizes the preservation of traditional hierarchies and the interests of those at the top. This perspective views “respect for and obedience to established hierarchy” as a primary value, leading to a prioritization of those “on top.” From this vantage point, the notion of those traditionally “on the bottom” gaining equal rights and resources is seen as a threat, a potential overturning of the established order. The consequences of this perspective can lead to outcomes that favor certain groups and ideologies while marginalizing others.
The decision by net neutrality advocates not to appeal, therefore, is seen as a strategic one. Why invest time and resources in a system perceived to be rigged, where the outcome is predetermined by the justices’ ideological preferences? Some see it as a sign of the decline of trust in the court as an impartial institution. The implications of this distrust are far-reaching. The Supreme Court’s authority rests on public acceptance, and if that trust erodes, the Court’s power diminishes. Individual states, already taking action on net neutrality, might start ignoring Supreme Court rulings, further eroding its authority.
Some suggest a radical approach, arguing for a “factory reset” of America. The belief is that the current system is irreparably flawed. The call for change is not merely about policy but about a fundamental shift in the principles and values that govern the nation. It is a perspective that points to the current legal system as a reflection of its historical roots, a past that is seen as disconnected from modern society. It suggests that the legal system is trapped by its reverence for the past, unable to adapt to the rapid changes of the modern world.
The situation is complex, with no easy solutions. The fact that the Supreme Court operates under norms and decorums that can be abandoned at any time makes it especially precarious. The long-term impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions, made within this framework, and how those decisions shape the future of American society is a pressing issue. The call for “reason, equal justice for all, and basic human decency” is seen as a fundamental need to improve the government. The future remains uncertain, and the path forward will require navigating complex political landscapes and challenging deeply ingrained perspectives.