Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to huntml
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... said by huntml:I absolutely agree with you, Mark, that this approach of going at the telcos in civil court is, well, bullshit. I *wish* that Congress had the balls to really look into this. Thanks. I'm glad to know we agree on something. That's always a start. I also think it's good to realize both sides have good intentions (nobody's intentionally trying to subvert the nation).
It sounds to me like Congress did look into it and has amended the law to legalize it, with more controls. Why is that not good enough? (Re, my other post about previous expedient actions in this country that were excused when made legal).
said by huntml:So, let's just see where this all goes, shall we? I'll wager money that the telcos get immunity. It will be packaged into omnibus legislation and politicians will have an "out" by saying there were too many good things that needed passage. "We'll have to go back and fix that one, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more...)." Or, they'll let FISA come close to sunsetting, and preserving it will be the expedient excuse for accepting immunity ("but, we'll have to go back and fix that...").
And there's always Presidential immunity. If Bill Clinton can pardon a bunch of convicted drug dealers, I'm sure President Bush can swing something for the telcos. It won't be hard for the federal courts to find that it applies to civil matters (when those taking the civil route are doing so because they can't get the criminal route to work for them).
To me, it's a given. They (even the politicians ostensibly opposed to it) are just looking for a way to pass it. It's going to be like how the Brady Bill passed (Bob Dole on the floor passing it by himself after all the Senators went on holiday recess).
Mark |
