Judge who blocked Do-Not-Call list had joined list two months ago-CNN

[ReiAyanami]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/do.not.call.ap/index.html

irony?

 

[Pandaren]

It is pretty funny, although I think it was probably a secretary or clerk that registered the number, not the judge himself

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Maybe irony but that doesn't change the fact that the registry may be an unconstitutional abridgement of commercial speech. Judges get blamed all the time for "activism" but the true problem is that Congress writes crappy laws and rarely revisits clear contradictions that they've produced.

 

[Vadatajs]

I'm sorry Doc, but where are protected commercial interests outlined in the constitution? I don't remember the word "commercial" being in the 1st ammendment.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Maybe irony but that doesn't change the fact that the registry may be an unconstitutional abridgement of commercial speech. Judges get blamed all the time for "activism" but the true problem is that Congress writes crappy laws and rarely revisits clear contradictions that they've produced.

sorry, there is no free speech that involves using my resources without my permission (my phone line that i pay for and whatever time wasted by me)

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Maybe irony but that doesn't change the fact that the registry may be an unconstitutional abridgement of commercial speech. Judges get blamed all the time for "activism" but the true problem is that Congress writes crappy laws and rarely revisits clear contradictions that they've produced.

sorry, there is no free speech that involves using my resources without my permission (my phone line that i pay for and whatever time wasted by me)

Amen, Jesus...

Texas' No Call List went live some time ago, it's been the greatest thing ever...

 

[tcsenter]

I'm sorry Doc, but where are protected commercial interests outlined in the constitution? I don't remember the word "commercial" being in the 1st ammendment.

For that matter, where are protected personal interests outlined in the Constitution? I don't remember the word "personal" being in the 1st Amendment? Certainly, I don't remember the word "exotic dancing" or "pornography" being in the 1st Amendment?

Sounds pretty dumb when your own logic is articulated back at you, eh?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Maybe irony but that doesn't change the fact that the registry may be an unconstitutional abridgement of commercial speech. Judges get blamed all the time for "activism" but the true problem is that Congress writes crappy laws and rarely revisits clear contradictions that they've produced.

Wait just a moment. Are they paying for my phone line? Are they paying me for my time to get my butt up off the sofa and answer the telephone? I don't think free speech applies on my property and on my dime over my privacy rights. My right to privacy exceeds their commerical right but the courts will decide the denver case eventually. Come over sometime if you don't believe me. I don't allow talking with food in mouths, profanity etc. No one has sued me yet.

BTW- This is just a "no solicitation" list. No different than you'd find on my gate or any businees door. Should they have to remove this notice and allow solicitation by unwelcomed callers? Should you have to hear a pharmacutical rep out in you place of business or at home? This list is the same thing as already saying "no thanks" to sales callers. So they have been heard and we have answered in the negatory. Seems fair to me.

 

[GoodToGo]

Irony defined.

 

[tk149]

Funny

But at least the judge had the integrity to rule according to his perception of the law, not on how he personally feels about telemarketing.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: tk149
Funny

But at least the judge had the integrity to rule according to his perception of the law, not on how he personally feels about telemarketing.

Well-said, and I concur.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: tk149
Funny

But at least the judge had the integrity to rule according to his perception of the law, not on how he personally feels about telemarketing.

Well-said, and I concur.

Hell has frozen over. I agree with Galt.

If the law is defective, it needs to be corrected. While I HATE calls during dinner, and I signed up for it, any law must conform to the Constitution. This applys to laws I like as well as to those I do not. The Constitution is the gold standard, and I cannot appeal to it if I let it be eviscerated for my convience.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Amen, Jesus...

Texas' No Call List went live some time ago, it's been the greatest thing ever...

Ditto for Tennessee. If he did sign up for the do not call list I commend him for at least making judgements based on how he perceives the law and not making based on hw it will affect his personal life.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: tk149
Funny

But at least the judge had the integrity to rule according to his perception of the law, not on how he personally feels about telemarketing.

Well-said, and I concur.

Hell has frozen over. I agree with Galt.

If the law is defective, it needs to be corrected. While I HATE calls during dinner, and I signed up for it, any law must conform to the Constitution. This applys to laws I like as well as to those I do not. The Constitution is the gold standard, and I cannot appeal to it if I let it be eviscerated for my convience.

That was just frost...not quite frozen

There is nothing in the Constitution, in my opinion, that gives someone the right to call me; they do, however have a right to call me in the absence of a law prohibiting them from call me, but they do not derive the right to call me from the Constitution. I don't think Congress is overstepping it bounds with the passage of this legislation.

What I concurred with is his analysis of the judge's decision. Though he probably against telemarketing and his name made it on the do-not-call list, he put his personal convictions aside and ruled in what he thought to be the letter of the law....that's what I respect.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So every time a low-life politician (actually it's an automated call . . . just like the telemarketers) calls my house to promote their BS . . . or even worse someone else's BS . . . why can I not opt out? I have no problem whatsoever with charities or even religious recruitment drives but I have absolutely no use for the politicians or telemarketers. Why can I not block both? Why single out the telemarketers when other forms of unsolicited phone/mail missives are equally burdensome?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
So every time a low-life politician (actually it's an automated call . . . just like the telemarketers) calls my house to promote their BS . . . or even worse someone else's BS . . . why can I not opt out? I have no problem whatsoever with charities or even religious recruitment drives but I have absolutely no use for the politicians or telemarketers. Why can I not block both? Why single out the telemarketers when other forms of unsolicited phone/mail missives are equally burdensome?

sending you snail mail doesn't cost you anything.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm a doctor . . . my time is expensive . . . even the time I waste on this board but that's my choice. Admittedly, I'm not against the do not call list as long as I can block the politicians as well. My guess is they would have never advocated this legislation if it included them. My mailbox, Inbox, and voicemail should all be free of telemarketers AND politicians.

 

[her209]

wooohooo, this means i can call people up and harrass them.