Trump MAGAthread X - Follow the Money

[The Flutterlands]

Why Not? The FCC is suppose to protect consumers, not serve the big corporations. This is regulatory capture. The Courts must see this and understand that Ajit Pai is full of shit. Is there no logic in the Courts?

Its logic that stays the courts hand - being neither a legislator nor a regulator. Courts should not be making policy. They should rule on the law and constitution as written.

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

[Galloism]

Its logic that stays the courts hand - being neither a legislator nor a regulator. Courts should not be making policy. They should rule on the law and constitution as written.

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

The state preemption portion is on shakier ground, according to various analyses.

[Seangoli]

Its logic that stays the courts hand - being neither a legislator nor a regulator. Courts should not be making policy. They should rule on the law and constitution as written.

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

First, the Courts do not get to decide new law, but rather must function within the confines of current law. As it stands, there is nothing AFAIK that prevents the FCC from removing Title II protections in accordance with the laws at hand. The Courts are not there to enact regulations on businesses; they are there to determine the legality of issues. The courts are not on the side of the people or the corporations; they are on the side of legality. That will be their sole purpose.

Second, not, it is not an oligarchy. In the future, vote for damn representatives that will enact strict laws rather than leave it up to the various Executive offices to dick around with this stuff. I hear there is an election next year that has all of the House of Representatives being up for re-election, as well as a good chunk of the Senate. While all of your Senators and Representatives are Democrats, it is still useful to let them know that this is an important issue. If the FCC doesn't want to do its job, then Congress can force the issue. They won't unless they have reason to believe their constituency will vote them out.

Third, there is very good reason to believe that they can't force the states to de-regulate. It is a bizarre move that I honestly cannot think of a precedent for, while there is long standing legal precedent that States can certainly regulate such services within their state. If I were to guess where they are getting the justification for this is the Commerce Clause and that this involves inter-state trade, yet I think they would have to be particularly stupid or brazen to seriously contend that in court.

[Corrian]

Scoop: Mueller obtains "tens of thousands” of Trump transition emails

Not quite ready to call happening.gif quite yet though.

Also...But her emails?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Scoop: Mueller obtains "tens of thousands” of Trump transition emails

Not quite ready to call happening.gif quite yet though.

Also...But her emails?

We really need to stop talking about emails so goddamn much.

[Herador]

Also...But her emails?

We really need to stop talking about emails so goddamn much.

Right? E-Mail is so 1998, all the cool kids are on the AIM now.

[Corrian]

Its logic that stays the courts hand - being neither a legislator nor a regulator. Courts should not be making policy. They should rule on the law and constitution as written.

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

"screaming in protest" doesn't change how courts work. Didn't you say you were going to school to be a freaking lawyer or something? You should know this shit then.

[Herador]

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

"screaming in protest" doesn't change how courts work. Didn't you say you were going to school to be a freaking lawyer or something? You should know this shit then.

That seems to be a trend around here.

[G-Tech Corporation]

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

"screaming in protest" doesn't change how courts work. Didn't you say you were going to school to be a freaking lawyer or something? You should know this shit then.

Nah, don’t worry about Flutters. We’re busy taking away his internet so he can’t go to law school, so gg.

[Corrian]

We really need to stop talking about emails so goddamn much.

Right? E-Mail is so 1998, all the cool kids are on the AIM now.

I honestly barely touch my email anymore.

[Unified Heartless States]

Putting my bets on mullboy getting canned soon

[Petrasylvania]

Putting my bets on mullboy getting canned soon

_____ Night Massacre when?

[Corrian]

Also...But her emails?

We really need to stop talking about emails so goddamn much.

I am tired of all these damn emails

[Corrian]

Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record

[Ism]

Trump's approval rating makes him least popular first-year president on record

Fake news, 3 million illegal immigrants voted in those polls.

[Corrian]

Looks like the word banning is being done at HHS as well

[Petrasylvania]

Looks like the word banning is being done at HHS as well

But it's liberals that get bitched at for political correctness.

[Corrian]

So Bob Corker supports the tax bill conveniently after a provision in it benefits him only.

They're literally benefiting themselves with this tax bill.

[The Flutterlands]

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

"screaming in protest" doesn't change how courts work. Didn't you say you were going to school to be a freaking lawyer or something? You should know this shit then.

Not yet. I am taking general education fiist. Pre-law and then law itself will be much later. I have been taking a politics class though

[The Flutterlands]

So the court is just going to sit on the sidelines and let the destruction of the FCC and the internet commence no matter how much scream in protest of how harmful this is? What a fucking joke. There is no justice. We truly are an oligarchy where big business always wins and we always lose.

Surely the state preemption law will be struck down, Right? They didn't give us any notice nor did they ask for input. So that violates the APA, rght? Also, how the fuck can a lack of regulation be in of itself a regulation, stating no one else can regulate? Surely no sensible court will let that slide, right?

First, the Courts do not get to decide new law, but rather must function within the confines of current law. As it stands, there is nothing AFAIK that prevents the FCC from removing Title II protections in accordance with the laws at hand. The Courts are not there to enact regulations on businesses; they are there to determine the legality of issues. The courts are not on the side of the people or the corporations; they are on the side of legality. That will be their sole purpose.

Second, not, it is not an oligarchy. In the future, vote for damn representatives that will enact strict laws rather than leave it up to the various Executive offices to dick around with this stuff. I hear there is an election next year that has all of the House of Representatives being up for re-election, as well as a good chunk of the Senate. While all of your Senators and Representatives are Democrats, it is still useful to let them know that this is an important issue. If the FCC doesn't want to do its job, then Congress can force the issue. They won't unless they have reason to believe their constituency will vote them out.

Third, there is very good reason to believe that they can't force the states to de-regulate. It is a bizarre move that I honestly cannot think of a precedent for, while there is long standing legal precedent that States can certainly regulate such services within their state. If I were to guess where they are getting the justification for this is the Commerce Clause and that this involves inter-state trade, yet I think they would have to be particularly stupid or brazen to seriously contend that in court.

They think the internet is a "interstate" commerce so they claim the right under the Commerce Clause. However, they are suppose to be giving up all power of "regulating" the internet to the FTC. So where the fuck does this preemption power come from?

Even still, what the FCC is doing is ignoring all facts and evidence that was used to actually put the net neutrality rules in place to begin with. When they will be justifying why the internet should be Title I information service and not a title II telecommunication service, they will be fucking lying to the courts under fucking oath! The Courts themselves should see that. Federal agencies can't just go making rules because of actual proven threats and them scrap them two years later claiming the threats don't exist and were imagined despite hard explicit facts and evidence otherwise!

Like claiming the sky is blue in one administration and then claiming It's green in the next despite actual evidence of the former...

[Vassenor]

That's a tad bit hyperbolic.

There are starving kids in Africa, but goddamn my internet is a human right!

And there we go with the Appeal To Worse Problems.

[Herador]

There are starving kids in Africa, but goddamn my internet is a human right!

And there we go with the Appeal To Worse Problems.

If someone has it worse you can never complain.

Flip side, if someone has it better, you can never be happy. Food for thought.

[Salandriagado]

Scoop: Mueller obtains "tens of thousands” of Trump transition emails

Not quite ready to call happening.gif quite yet though.

But his emails?

[Herador]

Scoop: Mueller obtains "tens of thousands” of Trump transition emails

Not quite ready to call happening.gif quite yet though.

But his emails?

I think the real takeaway here is that E-Mail services are working with the Russians. Where's McCarthy when we finally need him?

[Seangoli]

They think the internet is a "interstate" commerce so they claim the right under the Commerce Clause. However, they are suppose to be giving up all power of "regulating" the internet to the FTC. So where the fuck does this preemption power come from?

Note that this is my suspicion of how they will try to sell it in court, as it is about the only applicable law I can think of that could even remotely allow them to force the issue. There are few ways they could effectively coerce it through threatening to remove some form of federal funding for various public works projects, however directly disallowing states to regulate is a murky subject that I'm not sure they can successfully argue in courts.

Even still, what the FCC is doing is ignoring all facts and evidence that was used to actually put the net neutrality rules in place to begin with. When they will be justifying why the internet should be Title I information service and not a title II telecommunication service, they will be fucking lying to the courts under fucking oath! The Courts themselves should see that. Federal agencies can't just go making rules because of actual proven threats and them scrap them two years later claiming the threats don't exist and were imagined despite hard explicit facts and evidence otherwise!

The simple answer to this is that the FCC is free to determine whether or not ISPs are defined as a Title II common carrier or not (somewhat). The regulatory agencies are the ones who get to determine this. The entire reason that broadband was moved to Title II protections is because the was as a move to get around a court order that they couldn't regulate broadband in such a manner. They did not state in this that Broadband is protected under Title II at all; merely that if the FCC could not apply the regulations they tried to given the current classification of broadband. The FCC is the sole determiner of what is and isn't under Title II, and the courts will honestly not fight them on that one as the Courts have no legal authority to determine this(mostly). Now, where it would come up is if the FCC were sued by an ISP that did not want Broadband under Title II; in that case, the court would be responsible for whether or not broadband falls under the criteria for Title II protection, and whether it was properly implemented. That said, AFAIK, they have no legal authority to proclaim that a service *must* all under Title II protection.

That said, not everything that can fall under Title II protection does; that is for the FCC to determine, and they have the sole regulatory authority to do so. It doesn't really matter what previous administration's justifications were. The FCC does not have to prove that their reasonings are true. Rather, they will need to prove that they have the authority to remove Title II protections. Which they do have said authority. Where they may run afoul, however, is that they didn't follow proper procedure; that said, I'm not sure what the end result of that would be. I doubt it would go the way you think it would. Any court victory will likely be pyhric and largely temporary in nature; rather than enshrining Net Neutrality as defacto legal, they will likely rule that the FCC followed improper protocol and did not act with the public interest in mind in how it moved about in its ruling. The courts will almost certainly not say that the FCC has no legal authority to determine how to regulate ISPs and the internet, however; they will simply say that the manner in this specific case was improper. What that likely means is that we start the whole process over again, only this time the FCC goes about the process correctly.

The point I'm getting at is that the Court's place is not to determine whether or not Title II protections is sound policy. They have no authority to do that. Their authority is solely going to be on whether or not the FCC has the authority to do this, whether or not current case law on the subject is properly applied, and whether or not the FCC followed proper required procedure on the subject, and that is it. They have no authority to determine whether or not Title II protections is sound policy, or that removing said protections are unsound policy. That is beyond their ability; rather they will be determining whether or not Pai followed proper procedure, which may or may not go our way.

Like claiming the sky is blue in one administration and then claiming It's green in the next despite actual evidence of the former...

They most certainly can, and every administration does. Literally every administration gets to a point where they undo some part of the previous administration's policies, as those policies are not codified into law. They are policies. That's what you need to understand here; the FCC isn't voting down a law that was in place. They are changing policy. While executive policy is certainly not limitless, it is in charge of regulatory agencies. And everything that isn't specifically codified into law is more or less fair game for them to dick around with.

The only way to enshrine net neutrality in a manner that would keep this sort of thing from happening in the future is to enact an actual law on the matter. This may seem difficult, but keep in mind something: The Republicans currently have one of the least popular first term Presidents in history, by all metrics (Even Rasmussen, of all places, gives him 40% right now). The Republican Congress has failed to pass any noteworthy legislation at all, even though they talk about grand plans. The legislation they have tried to pass was deeply unpopular. The only legislative win they might have for the first full year they have had a Super Majority is resoundly hated by everybody, and is likely to be just a complete mess by the time they are done with it that might not pass anyway. They just lost a seat in Alabama, for pity's sake. They seemingly have no awareness of any of this, either, as they just continue to charge forward. Paul Ryan is likely to resign next year. Bob Corker is retiring next year. McCain, while warmer to the Democrats, is likely to retire in the very near future.

The Republicans are setting themselves up for a slaughter next year. The House is very much in play, and I would not be at all surprised if Democrats gain it. The Senate is rough for Democrats, though not impossible; with Doug Jones winning in Alabama, it is possible that Republican enthusiasm will be suppressed enough. While they need to keep every seat up for election, the near-miracle in Alabama means they only need to gain 2 more seats in the Senate for a majority instead of 3. This is huge as only Heller and Flake are truly competitive states currently; the rest are in pretty heavily Republican states. While there are an equal number of Democrats up for re-election in such competitive states (And frankly, most of their seats are likely safe), the simple truth is that prior to Doug Jones, a majority at all coming into this next year was a practical impossibility. While it's still a long shot, it is certainly a possibility now and a path for a Senate majority actually exists when one didn't exist before.

That said, if the Democrats take the House, and are able to at least maintain their numbers in the Senate (Or bring it to a tie in practice, as the independents caucus with them), they can still get Republican senators to support Net Neutrality laws; while party-line politics is powerful, it is not all-encompassing. If the Republicans get truly slaughtered next year, those Senators up for re-election in 2020 are suddenly going to be very, very concerned moving forward about the sway Trump has, and whether or not it is beneficial to cow-toe to his whims. They will also be looking for some popular measure to attach their name to, and Net Neutrality is a popular one. They don't need many; possibly just one defector will be necessary. More if they want to secure it. Some Republican Senators have come out vocally opposed to the FCC's move, and may be able to be swayed to vote if the demographics of Congress change.