The same way any other unionized employees do: higher wages, better benefits, collective bargaining, serious representation in the corporate hierarchy, better job security.
What better benefits could a Google possibly want?
More vacation time, more reasonable working hours, a more transparent process for promotions and raises, better paternity/maternity polices, a seat on the board and more say into how the company is run.
There is a lot more to collective bargaining than salaries.
Judging is the act of applying law (general) to a particular case (specific). Since laws can't anticipate every future situation at their time of writing, no matter what there will _always_ be some disconnect between these two -- i.e. vagueness/generality in law, leading to edge cases.
Which is why two judges can come to two completely separate conclusions on a single issue, while drawing from the same laws, based on their own personal methods of interpretation and biases.
Judges in the lower circuits are also held accountable to higher circuit judges if they don't interpret the law while taking past case judgement into consideration.
A lower district judge can't overrule a higher judge's opinions.
Oral argument is usually just for clarifications/questions over the written briefs. Judge Leon likely later read the written briefs on his own time (that is his job, after all).
Also, in the U.S., police don’t shoot unarmed suspects, get caught planting evidence on camera and the judicial system prosecuted and convicts fairly regardless of race and class and always follow the rules.....
In Tennessee v. FCC, [1] the FCC, under the authority of §706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, attempted to preempt state laws that prohibit municipalities from building their own broadband networks under certain circumstances (these laws were obviously lobbied and passed by ISPs in the state legislatures). This was struck down by courts because, although the supremacy clause means that federal law supplants state law, the federal law at hand was so far removed from what the FCC was doing in this particular case, that the FCC was essentially creating "directives" which overruled state law in pursuit of a vague goal that was defined in federal law. In essence, federal administrators/bureaucrats had the power to overrule state law. Although the ISPs "won" in that decision, it cuts both ways -- which means that any attempt by the FCC to preempt net neutrality regulations under §706 is likely to fail as well.
Sorry if my take is a little confusing, here is some more coverage: [2], [3].
Problem is: if New Mexico passes a Net Neutrality law but all of the Netflix data centers are in Arizona it's suddenly going to be "interstate commerce"
Yes, and congress could pass a law banning net neutrality. But under current law, the FCC is not able to issue a directive doing the same thing.
A law banning NN will never get passed due to gridlock (thankfully), so barring some huge change in public opinion I don't see states being prohibited from enforcing NN.
Something being interstate commerce does not prevent states from legislating on it. Under that logic, states couldn't regulate the sale of anything produced in another state, which is obviously untrue.
no it just means that the federal government has constitutional power to over rule it if they feel like it, no need to argue on the basis of any existing case law.
FYI, the legal term you're looking for is "state actor". In case that helps with googling.