CFIF often highlights how the Biden Administration's bizarre decision to resurrect failed Title II "…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: U.S. Internet Speeds Skyrocketed After Ending Failed Title II "Net Neutrality" Experiment

CFIF often highlights how the Biden Administration's bizarre decision to resurrect failed Title II "Net Neutrality" internet regulation, which caused private broadband investment to decline for the first time ever outside of a recession during its brief experiment at the end of the Obama Administration, is a terrible idea that will only punish consumers if allowed to take effect.

Here's what happened after that brief experiment was repealed under the Trump Administration and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai - internet speeds skyrocketed despite late-night comedians' and left-wing activists' warnings that the internet was doomed:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="515"] Internet Speeds Post-"Net Neutrality"[/caption]

 …[more]

April 19, 2024 • 09:51 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Update on the Anna Nicole Smith Case: the Long, Strange Two-Pronged Trip through Our Legal System Continues Print
By CFIF Staff
Monday, July 06 2009
The fourteen-year jackpot justice abomination that is the Anna Nicole Smith case continues, but may hopefully reach a just conclusion soon.

The fourteen-year jackpot justice abomination that is the Anna Nicole Smith case continues, but may hopefully reach a just conclusion soon.

Although media attention understandably centers upon the tawdry celebrity element of this dispute, it has actually spawned an alarming Supreme Court decision that should trouble all Americans. 

As readers of CFIF’s website may recall, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Marshall v. Marshall matter that a duplicative federal bankruptcy court action was somehow not preempted by a preexisting Texas state court lawsuit.  Originally a state probate court matter, overactive lawyers thought they could improve their odds by filing a redundant action in a California federal bankruptcy court.  From there, the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the United States Supreme Court, which remanded back to the Ninth Circuit following its decision. 

The reason for alarm is that in cases such as this one, which center upon state law questions, federal courts had traditionally deferred to state courts.  By eroding that longstanding deference, the Supreme Court not only exacerbated federal intrusion into traditionally state matters, but also increased trial lawyers’ ability to forum-shop and file multiple lawsuits in alternate jurisdictions in pursuit of a result to their liking. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s disturbing ruling undermined estate planning and philanthropic giving across the nation by granting federal judges authority over state inheritance matters with which they’re less familiar. 

In the latest installment of this long, strange road trip through the American legal system, the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments last month on remand.    Hopefully, the Court will reach its previous substantive conclusion, thereby providing the Marshall family with long-overdue justice, and making this the last stop in a regrettable legal saga. 

In addition to the Marshall family, the health of the U.S. legal system and sanity of Americans is also at stake.

Notable Quote   
 
"Remember when progressives said the Trump Administration's rollback of net neutrality would break the internet? Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel now concedes this was wrong, yet she plans to reclaim political control over the internet anyway to stop a parade of new and highly doubtful horribles.The FCC on Thursday is expected to vote to reclassify broadband providers as…[more]
 
 
— Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
 
Liberty Poll   

If TikTok's data collection or manipulation under Chinese ownership is the grave danger that our government says it is (and it may well be), then wouldn't the prudent action be to ban it immediately rather than some time down the road?