Donna Sorgi , vice-president of federal advocacy for WorldCom, is quoted in the Feb. 10 edition of TR Daily [subscription required] as stating that CLECs are almost sure to lose the Triennial Review appeal. She goes on to say that in light of the forthcoming anticipated adverse decisison "it is it critical for all of us to meet with our Congresspeople . . . so that when the adverse decision comes out, as we expect it will as early as late February, we can have key public officials, particularly prominent Republicans, speak out and demand that this decision get reviewed by the Supreme Court on behalf of consumers and the companies offering competitive services."
Well, I know I am probably a bit old fashioned, but it just seems to me that one appeals to the Supreme Court in briefs based on legal arguments. Not by rallying the troops to "speak out" and "demand" the Court do this or that. Lobbying, of course, has a long and noble history--and, what's more, it's protected expression, of course. But the lobbying activity is better directed to get the lawmakers to change the law--if that is what WorldCom thinks needs to be done--not to get the lawmakers to demand that the Supreme Court take a case and decide it a certain way.
As I said, I'm old fashioned that way....