<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:dc="https://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
>
    <channel>
                    <atom:link href="https://www.nexttv.com/feeds/tag/justice-clarence-thomas" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
                            <title><![CDATA[ Latest from Next TV in Justice-clarence-thomas ]]></title>
                <link>https://www.nexttv.com/tag/justice-clarence-thomas</link>
        <description><![CDATA[ All the latest justice-clarence-thomas content from the Next TV team ]]></description>
                                    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:46:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
                            <language>en</language>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Justice Thomas Slams His Own Brand X Decision ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.nexttv.com/news/justice-thomas-slams-his-own-brand-x-decision</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Justice Thomas Slams His Own Brand X Decision ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">acD6V1QVfHHVAWMiodC9zc</guid>
                                                                                                <enclosure url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gAiETiXwCSvJCApWdQ6raW-1280-80.jpg" type="image/jpeg" length="0"></enclosure>
                                                                        <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:46:02 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
                                                                                                <author><![CDATA[ john.eggerton@futurenet.com (John Eggerton) ]]></author>                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ John Eggerton ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                    <dc:source><![CDATA[ http://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ETjt8sjZcQr97v7yakQ4hP.jpg ]]></dc:source>
                                                                <dc:description><![CDATA[ null ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <media:content type="image/jpeg" url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gAiETiXwCSvJCApWdQ6raW-1280-80.jpg">
                                                            <media:credit><![CDATA[null]]></media:credit>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    </media:content>
                                                    <media:thumbnail url="https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/gAiETiXwCSvJCApWdQ6raW-1280-80.jpg" />
                                                                                                                                                                    <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <p>The Supreme Court's 2005 Brand X decision upholding the FCC's authority to classify broadband as an information service not subject to mandatory access common-carrier regulations has a new foe--the author of the decision. </p><p>Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QfSrOcLvAyOFY7er2guqVM4lf2sPWDja/view">in dissenting from a petition to review Brand X in the context of a different case</a>--the court denied the petition to review--Thomas said: "Although I authored Brand X, 'it is never too late to ‘surrende[r] former views to a better considered position.' </p><p><a href="https://www.nexttv.com/news/judge-gorsuch-no-fan-chevron-deference-410675" data-original-url="https://www.multichannel.com/news/judge-gorsuch-no-fan-chevron-deference-410675">Related: Judge Gorsuch No Fan of Chevron Deference </a></p><p>He has apparently surrendered.  </p><p>In the 2005 Brand X decision, which was about the classification of Internet access service, the court ruled that Chevron deference trumped an appeals court decision because that court had found the statute vague and, in such cases, the court should defer to the federal agency's subject matter expertise, in this case the FCC. </p><p>Thomas said that he now believes that Brand X "appears to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and traditional tools of statutory interpretation." </p><p>Thomas was not talking about whether the decision to classify ISPs as information services was the right one as a matter of policy, but instead was saying that the court's decision to grant the FCC so-called Chevron deference insulated it from the court's proper oversight role. </p><p>Thomas said that Brand X "has taken this Court to the precipice of administrative absolutism." And while he had entertained in the past the possibility that "there is some unique historical justification for deferring to federal agencies, [i]t now appears to me that there is no such special justification and that Chevron is inconsistent with accepted principles of statutory interpretation from the first century of the Republic." </p><p>In Brand X, he said, the court held that “if [a] statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” he said that decision rested on a "fiction" that "silent or ambiguous statutes are an implicit delegation from Congress to agencies." </p><p>Thomas said the Chevron deference at the heart of Brand X compels judges to abdicate their judiciary oversight role, which is independent judgment, judgment that Chevron deference unconstitutionally trumps. "This apparent abdication by the Judiciary and usurpa tion by the Executive is not a harmless transfer of power," he argues. </p><p>Thomas suggested it was time to revisit Brand X and in doing so, "consider taking a step away from the abyss."</p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
                                <item>
                                                            <title><![CDATA[ Colorado’s High on Layer3 TV, Restoring Some Cable Cachet ]]></title>
                                                                                                                                                                                                <link>https://www.nexttv.com/news/colorado-s-high-layer3-tv-restoring-some-cable-cachet-391927</link>
                                                                            <description>
                            <![CDATA[ Colorado’s High on Layer3 TV, Restoring Some Cable Cachet ]]>
                                                                                                            </description>
                                                                                                                                <guid isPermaLink="false">7PCwxTNt5PQcHibmuxMSAy</guid>
                                                                                                                            <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2015 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[Content]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[Distribution]]></category>
                                                    <category><![CDATA[Streaming]]></category>
                                                                                                                    <dc:creator><![CDATA[ MCN Staff ]]></dc:creator>                                                                                                        <dc:description><![CDATA[ null ]]></dc:description>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        <content:encoded >
                            <![CDATA[
                            <article>
                                <p><strong>Comcast</strong> has about a 22 million video-subscriber lead over <strong>Layer3 TV</strong>, but the two companies are even-Steven according to readers of a Colorado-based business magazine.</p><p>Comcast and Layer3 TV, a stealthy startup that’s billing itself as a “next-generation” cable company, were named runners-up in <em>ColoradoBiz</em>’s inagural “Best of Colorado–Readers’ Choice” supplement in the Best Telecom Equipment and Service Category. Both could still do better, as <strong>CenturyLink</strong> and <strong>Verizon Wireless</strong> shared the category’s top honor, selected through an online voting process run by a third-party research firm called <strong>DataJoe</strong>.</p><p>But the kudos serve as another heaping of local recognition on Layer3 TV, which opened its Denver headquarters just last fall on the eighth floor of an 11-story building at 1660 Wynkoop St. that’s tucked in the city’s hip LoDo district near Union Station, Coors Field and a light rail station.</p><p>It also writes another chapter in an apparent love affair between Layer3 TV and Colorado, once known as the cable capital of the world.</p><p>In addition to bringing some cool cachet to the Mile High City, the IP-video startup has also pledged to bring more than 300 new jobs into the area, with an average wage of $92,083 (it’s approaching 100 employees companywide). In support of its expansion plans and corporate relocation (from Boston), Colorado also awarded Layer3 TV $2.9 million in job-growth incentive tax credits and workforce development and technical assistance. Layer3 TV was also one of the companies featured last fall in a campaign video from Colorado Gov. <strong>John Hickenlooper</strong>.</p><p>For its workers, Layer3 TV is also infusing some Silicon Valley style into its culture — letting them work off some steam in a game area that features a ping pong table and access to a fully-stocked kitchen, and providing an open floor plan that’s designed to cultivate collaboration. The Wire has also learned that the company is known to sponsor outings to LoDo-area eateries, including wing nights and pizza nights.</p><p>Layer3 TV also has a “green” tinge to it, thanks to a new sustainable environment policy that promotes recycling and a bike-share program.</p><p>But local recognition will only get the startup so far. Layer3 TV, which has raised more than $80 million, is in the process of developing a service that will bring revenue in the door. It’s still being coy about its specific plan and strategy, but has said it is on track to launch its service by late this summer.</p><p><em>— Jeff Baumgartner</em></p><p><strong><em>TWC News Nets Had Upstate N.Y. Jailbreak Covered</em></strong></p><p>The June 28 capture of <strong>David Sweat</strong>, after the police killing of <strong>Richard Matt</strong>, ended a frantic period for <strong>Time Warner Cable News</strong> regional coverage in upstate New York. The pair, you doubtless know, escaped from Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, N.Y., and the search for them over three weeks led police on a wild chase that ended less than two miles from the Canadian border.</p><p><strong>Anthony Proia</strong>, senior director of news operations for TWC, said reporters canceled vacations and worked, in some cases, around the clock pursuing stories and providing hours of live coverage of what New York Gov. <strong>Andrew Cuomo</strong> deemed a crisis situation.</p><p>Remote areas without cellphone coverage, and roads crowded with police vehicles and checkpoints, posed challenges, Proia said. But local ties helped reporters such as <strong>Alexa Green</strong> score exclusives, notably an interview with Sweat’s mother, <strong>Pamela</strong>, of Binghamton, N.Y., after her son’s capture. (Sweat’s mom said her son wouldn’t dare come to Binghamton because “I would have knocked him out and had them guys take him to jail by themselves.”)</p><p>Other notables included anchor <strong>Solomon Syed</strong>, who canceled his vacation and anchored hours of live coverage; Watertown, N.Y.-based reporter <strong>Brian Dwyer</strong>; and <strong>Geoff Reddick</strong>, Proia said. He was preparing a communiqué to the staff to get some rest before the next big news breaks.</p><p><em>— Kent Gibbons</em></p><p><strong><em>Supreme Irony as Thomas Rips Into ‘Chevron’ Deference</em></strong></p><p>U.S. Supreme Court Justice <strong>Clarence Thomas</strong> is no fan of the <em>Chevron</em> defense precedent for review of regulatory actions, a deference that has benefited the Federal Communications Commission in challenges to its rules. He took aim at the practice in a concurring opinion last week in the case of <em>Michigan vs. EPA</em>, suggesting the high court might have established its own unconstitutional precedent.</p><p>In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the <strong>Environmental Protection Agency</strong> should have considered the cost impact of new regulations before proposing them. The EPA asked the court to defer to its interpretation of the phrase “appropriate and necessary.” The court said no.</p><p><em>Chevron</em> is the legal theory that, when a statute is ambiguous, the court gives the benefit of the doubt to regulatory agencies’ interpretation, given their subject-matter expertise.</p><p>Thomas wrote the opinion in the 2005 <em>Brand X</em> case that upheld the FCC’s decision that cable broadband was an information service — a decision the FCC has since prominently reversed. In doing so, Thomas had followed the court’s precedent in <em>Chevron</em>.</p><p>But last week he ripped into that precedent, questioning the constitutionality of deferring to agencies and liberally borrowing from <em>Brand X</em> to illustrate his point. “Interpreting federal statutes — including ambiguous ones administered by an agency — ‘calls for that exercise of independent judgment,’ ” Thomas said. “<em>Chevron</em> deference precludes judges from exercising that judgment, forcing them to abandon what they believe is ‘the best reading of an ambiguous statute’ in favor of an agency’s construction,” he said.</p><p>That, he said, runs into separation of powers issues. Twice, actually.</p><p>One way to look at it is that a federal agency is engaging in judicial interpretation, which is the province of the courts.</p><p>But Thomas said it is even clearer that what the <em>Chevron</em> precedent is giving agencies is legislative power. “If we give the ‘force of law’ to agency pronouncements on matters of private conduct as to which ‘Congress did not actually have an intent,’ ” he said, “we permit a body other than Congress to perform a function that requires an exercise of the legislative power.”</p><p>Thomas said a number of cases, including his own following of <em>Chevron</em> deference in <em>Brand X,</em> “brings into bold relief the scope of the potentially unconstitutional delegations we have come to countenance in the name of <em>Chevron</em> deference.”</p><p><em>— John Eggerton</em></p>
                                                            </article>
                            ]]>
                        </content:encoded>
                                                </item>
            </channel>
</rss>