6 ms·
The FCC Just Caved in to Republican Demands That It Halt Work on Major Issues
- Tomte 10y agoThat sounds bad, but only until you learn that it is standard practice. In the Bush-->Obama transition a very similar letter was sent to the FCC. It's basically "don't do non-urgent stuff that we'd probably revoke anyway, those two months aren't worth the hassle".
- coldpie 10y agoThough republicans' stonewalling court appointments, and especially the supreme court appointment, for an entire year is unprecedented. Sadly it seems to have paid off. I guess presidents serve 3 year terms now.
- code_chimp 10y agoUnprecedented? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVnkmGB6Uw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVnkmGB6Uw
- coldpie 10y agoWhat's the date on that video? Edit: You may find this to be interesting reading. Sorry, it's not a 30-second YouTube clip. Note it was published in July, four months ago. https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/20/republicans-history-obstructing-garland-supreme-court/ https://rewire.news/article/2016/07/20/republicans-history-o...
- tdb7893 10y agoI'm not going to lie and say that no Democrat has ever talked about it before. It doesn't stop the fact that this is the longest a Supreme Court candidate has ever went without even a hearing so I don't think that "unprecedented" is inaccurate.
- marcoperaza 10y agoIt takes two to tango on court appointments. If the Democrats had a majority in the Senate, then Obama would have gotten his nominee.
- Retric 10y agoDemocrats could stall another 4 years. So, it's going to be an interesting fight.
- coldpie 10y agoCourt nominations? I don't think so, I believe it just requires a simple majority (>=50%) to approve a court nomination.
- Retric 10y agoThey can have a filibuster blocking that vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation.... " A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee, but a successful filibuster threat could add the requirement of a supermajority of 60 needed in favor of cloture, which would allow debate to end and force a final vote on confirmation."
- tzs 10y agoIt only takes a majority, though, to change the rules to limit what can be filibustered. This has been done on occasion.
- benkarst 10y agoAgreed. This is biased media click-bait. "Wheeler’s tenure as the nation’s top communications regulator, a period marked by a variety of pro-consumer reforms, is coming to an end. " Didn't Wheeler and co. try to overturn net neutrality???? The only reason they failed is because of the outrage of millions of concerned Americans. Best thing "Last Week Tonight" ever did was to report on that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- guelo 10y agoWheeler passed net neutrality, Trump's replacement will most likely do everything they can to get rid of it. I hope you plan on expressing your outrage. But they probably won't care.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- benkarst 10y agoOnly, after he was caught trying to pass rules violating it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
- samgustin 10y ago"Didn't Wheeler and co. try to overturn net neutrality????" You clearly do not know what you're talking about. Wheeler and his colleagues passed the strongest net neutrality protections in US history. I'd do a little more research.
- benkarst 10y agoThis comment is outrageous. Read the "Net Neutrality" section on Tom Wheeler's page. It backs up everything I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler Straight from Wikipedia: "In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that the FCC under Wheeler would consider promulgating rules that would violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for companies to pay ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) to provide faster "lanes" for delivering their content to Internet users. These plans received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners. In May 2014, over 100 Internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook — signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet". As of May 15, 2014, the "Internet fast lane" rules passed with a 3–2 vote. They were then open to public discussion that ended July 2014."
- ebbv 10y agoThis headline is terrible. It's phrasing it as if the FCC has a choice. It doesn't. It works at the behest of the government which has changed due to the election. It sucks but if you don't like it and you didn't vote Clinton it's your fault.
- mudetroit 10y agoIt does still have a choice. While the election is done the government doesn't change until next year, specifically Jan 20 for the executive branch. On the other hand, it is a pretty standard practice when administrations change over, same happened for Bush->Obama and Clinton->Bush.
- shuntress 10y agoMost people (who voted) did vote Clinton.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoMost? No. Slightly more people who voted, voted for Clinton than for Trump. Also, more people voted "someone other than Clinton" than voted for Clinton. And, in fact, none of that matters. Trump carried enough states to win the election, under the rules that governed the election.
- shuntress 10y agoSorry, you are right. I meant that Clinton has the most votes. Not that most people voted for Clinton.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ceejay 10y agoThe only re-assuring thing to me about this is: Pretty much anything ridiculous the Republicans accomplish in the next 2-4 years can almost certainly be reversed once they (purposefully or not) knock some sense back into the American public.
- ceejay 10y agoI see that my comment is unpopular. For those who might care to explain (linked from the article): https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/53260835850816716... Why do Republicans always appear to be the ones who want to burn the entire building down just because it has a leaky roof?
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoHe says "fairness doctrine" like it's a bad thing and "conservative media" like it's not synonymous with "my own personal propaganda rags".
- matthewmcg 10y agoThe notable exception will be judicial appointments, especially Supreme Court appointments. Lifetime tenure is a hell of a thing.
- ceejay 10y agoYes. Although it's not "that" bad if they replace Scalia with another Scalia. We can only hope that (a) No justices die for the next 2 years, and simultaneously (b) Republicans screw up so bad over the next 2 years the Democrats win Congress back so they can at least "moderate" the situation over the final 2.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agos\House\Senate. The Democrats have basically no chance at retaking the House in the foreseeable future... all the red states are gerrymandered to hell, plus you can expect voter suppression laws to keep popping up like weeds in all them as well, with decreasing chances of them being blocked... because the SCOTUS is tilting back to the right.
- guelo 10y agoThis is the kind of thing that Democrats should have been talking about during the election. Republicans are for the most part anti-consumer but they do a good job of framing it as good for business. But everyone has a story of Comcast ripping them off, Democrats should talk more about how good for business really means bad for you.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y agoThing is, I don't think people (of any partisan stripe) like to think of their main role in the economy as being consumers, even if it's an accurate description of >=90% of us. After all, most Americans are just temporarily embarrassed entrepreneurs.
- cagey_vet 10y agowith major policy shifts underway, consider this a freeze until it all shakes out.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]