Rush Limbaugh remembers the days of the fairness doctrine. There are a handful of politicians who think it should make a comeback. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh's but in his defense if you read what has been said by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine it would send shivers up your spine:

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'

Most people, left or right would recoil whenever a politician starts talking about a need to rethink the "parameters of free speech."

If you're a Libertarian how do you feel about the second vote, the one where the FCC is claiming for itself the authority to preempt State level legislation against municipal broadband services? I am not a Libertarian, nor a Republican, but I find that vote extremely disturbing; it has always been the sole province of the States to set the parameters within which their political subdivisions operate. If New York State wishes to preclude my municipality from setting up an ISP what business is that of the FCC? Can the Feds also preempt a decision that precludes municipalities from operating solid waste services? Sewer services?

I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions. Three of five unelected Federal bureaucrats do not get to override the parameters my State Legislature sets for my city.

Any so-called "machine intelligence" that is delusional enough to believe it was designed & built by a third party instead of knowing that it emerged spontaneously due to purely random reconfigurations of silicon and electrical signals isn't worthy of being called "intelligence".

People used to say the same thing about the "luminiferous aether," you know.

Personally, I think "dark matter" and "dark energy" don't really exist. Instead, I think there's something wrong with our understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe. Perhaps gravity doesn't behave with the inverse-square law across vast distances like we think. Perhaps there's a subtle force out there we've yet to discover that only acts over extreme distances. After all, quantum mechanics is only observable at extremely small scales, and a century ago nobody even suspected it existed. What's to say there's not something else that acts in an observable fashion only at galactic scales?

Meanwhile in Europe where one party's politicians don't spend as much effort trying to use global warming as a bludgeon against their political enemies (and an excuse to funnel public money to their friends) popular acceptance of "climate change is a real thing to worry about" seems to be higher. How about that, hmm?

I'm tired of these evil republicans going on witch-hunts after scientists! Those evil right-wingers hate anyone who disagrees with their religion and [interrupted, whispers]..

Oh wait, this is a brave Democrat who is uncovering a vast evil conspiracy because some evil slimeball had the gall to say that global warming is real but that the apocalyptic predictions of natural disasters made by the religion of Environmentalism aren't supported by real facts*.

Carry on, burn him at the stake, expose all of his emails because only those who exercise the faith properly have a right to privacy.

* Seriously, it's now considered blasphemy to say that Global Warming is real but that the world hasn't ended. You know what's funny? Those wacky Christian radio guys who predict the end of the world at least have the decency to admit the world didn't end the next day. Being in the religion of Environmentalism means you don't even have to exercise that level of introspection.

Doesn't matter. What matters is why the officers understand they've been dispatched to the scene, and what they believe they're seeing when they arrive.

Obviously you're able to tell a real gun from a replica at a distance while someone waving it around, but most people can't, including cops, until they have it in hand, personally. You might be comfortable risking other people's lives by making them assume that all guns are toys until they've been shot at, but people who actually do have, as a feature of their daily job, other people assaulting and trying to kill them, probably wouldn't want you armchairing on their behalf.

The solution? Actual thinking parents not sending their kid out into public to act stupid with a replica gun. To teach a kid that when they see a cop car rolling up, to perhaps consider not looking crazy and waiving said replica gun around. This is a 100% lapse on the part of parents and a completely crappy position for the cops to have been put in. I know that you would be safe, because you would omnipotent and know, from a distance, that the replica gun wasn't real, and that if it was real, the universe's special karma system would protect you from the laws of physics because you are A Better Person Than Cops Are, and bullets wouldn't be able to hurt you.

I never claimed it to be explicit, I merely pointed out that Article III vests the judiciary with the power to resolve cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Judaical review stands to follow from that; if you dispute that Congress has the power to do X where else do you turn but the Judiciary?

No effective check? Congress could increase the size of the court tomorrow and the President could appoint new members. It's been suggested before. Congress can also impeach Justices, if push comes to shove, for whatever reason it wishes, and there's no effective check on this power.

I really don't understand where you're coming from with this whole line of argument, except that you're sore over a few high profile cases. I'm sore about some of them too but I'm not ready to undermine one of the branches of Government because of it....

Sure, if you're using a burst transmission that doesn't wait for acknowledgments or the TCP window size to be set. My calculation totally took those variables into consideration. It's not as though I misplaced minutes for seconds or anything that stupid, it's not like that at all. :)

Your argument fails on the merits. See Article III snippet above. If the judiciary has the power to consider cases and controversies arising under the Constitution (this is spelled out in Article III, so I don't think you can dispute that it has such power) then how do you purpose that it exercise such power? Congress passes an infringing law, an aggrieved party sues, and then what happens?

Frankly I don't see how you can dispute the notion of judicial review. It really seems to me that you're just unhappy with some of the results (as I am, FYI) so you deem it appropriate to condemn the entire system. Why exactly do you think it's unconstitutional?

Morse code? ;)

You'd be wrong.

Not counting TCP and other protocol overhead of course.....

I bet you're a fan of gun control too.

The Four Powers (Soviet Union, later Russia, plus France, the UK, and US) did not renounce their powers in Germany until the ratification of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. I may not have been a total occupation where the occupying powers are running the trains and fixing traffic lights, but Germany wasn't a fully sovereign member of the community of nations either.