Net Neutrality

[DBTrek]

Yeah, that was pretty gangsta.
Don’t see TC bouncing back from that one.

[K@th]

Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you.

They do. This is the same body that said eminent domain can be used to take your house if they find a Tastee Freeze to be more profitable to the community and decided it's okay for government to require citizens to purchase things from for-profit corporations. So, there's that.

Hey, what is it that you guys tell me, SCOTUS is as high as you can go? Complaining is useless? So why do so if the law has been decided?

Seems to me you are crying over spilt milk...

Lol - so quit your bitching about having to buy insurance.

[The Conservative]

They do. This is the same body that said eminent domain can be used to take your house if they find a Tastee Freeze to be more profitable to the community and decided it's okay for government to require citizens to purchase things from for-profit corporations. So, there's that.

Hey, what is it that you guys tell me, SCOTUS is as high as you can go? Complaining is useless? So why do so if the law has been decided?

Seems to me you are crying over spilt milk...

Lol - so quit your bitching about having to buy insurance.

You mean the same one that has been gutted, and ultimately now can be heard back in the SCOTUS because it no longer is viable under its original ruling?

Sure...

[Fife]

/sigh

I could have just as easily used some other brand name in my random list; I could have just have easily said "overstock.com" rather than "Amazon."

One never knows which shiny object is going to get the jaws a-wagging on wild tangents around here.

Anyway, the Amazon SCOTUS case is another of those McDonald's coffee myths that has grown somehow far beyond its boundaries.

It was a VERY narrow case, decided 9-0 by SCOTUS, interpreting a 1947 federal statute werein Congress decided they would be the ones deciding when Joe Sixpack's workday starts and ends on every square inch of the USA, as a matter of federal law. I think SCOTUS took it up at all just to resolve a split in authority among the Courts of Appeal, as a result of yet another nutty 9th Circuit decision in the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/busi ... nings.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_5h26.pdf

A much more interesting case would be one where the SCOTUS could somehow explain to us where in the blue fuck Congress has any sniff of authority to do *that*.

[K@th]

You speak in riddles, sometimes, Fife. What is your point, please?

[The Conservative]

/sigh

I could have just as easily used some other brand name in my random list; I could have just have easily said "overstock.com" rather than "Amazon."

One never knows which shiny object is going to get the jaws a-wagging on wild tangents around here.

Anyway, the Amazon SCOTUS case is another of those McDonald's coffee myths that has grown somehow far beyond its boundaries.

It was a VERY narrow case, decided 9-0 by SCOTUS, interpreting a 1947 federal statute werein Congress decided they would be the ones deciding when Joe Sixpack's workday starts and ends on every square inch of the USA, as a matter of federal law. I think SCOTUS took it up at all just to resolve a split in authority among the Courts of Appeal, as a result of yet another nutty 9th Circuit decision in the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/busi ... nings.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 3_5h26.pdf

A much more interesting case would be one where the SCOTUS could somehow explain to us where in the blue fuck Congress has any sniff of authority to do *that*.

The Hot Coffee myth is an issue upon its own... I've had to argue the case in a law class before, and I'll tell you right now the only reason the case ever got to court was that McDonald's refused to pay for the medical expenses.

[The Conservative]

You speak in riddles, sometimes, Fife. What is your point, please?

In English, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

[K@th]

Yes, yes - stealing from employees is no big deal. Gotcha.

And, also true - TC is the only valid recipient of welfare.

[Fife]

You speak in riddles, sometimes, Fife. What is your point, please?

No riddles. I'm just trying to add some facts to the discussion of the Amazon warehouse FLSA case, since it has become a thing in this thread now, for some unknown reason.

My snark, if it could be called that, was in reference to how my off-handed reference to the Amazon brand in an entirely unrelated matter led to a few pages of bashing Amazon as some kind of extra-special corporate evil-doer just because it got sued by some blood-sucking class-action shop for doing what essentially every business with a security gate does.

[K@th]

I'll bash any company that requires its employees to spend a few hours a week doing tasks they aren't paid for. It's wrong.