5 ms·

EDIT: Read the comments below, I was off a bit. EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS. To be entirely fair, he isn't a pa

EDIT: Read the comments below, I was off a bit. EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS. To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue, and not one entirely of this administration. He was appointed by the 44th President and got a promotion by the 45th.

VectorLock 9y ago
I hope President Camacho wouldn't promote him.
labster 9y ago
Neither of those things are quite true, but he will be taking the Fifth.
tacomonstrous 9y ago
He was chosen explicitly as the Republican nominee on the FCC board of commissioners, so it is most certainly partisan.
ictoan 9y ago
Pai was appointed by Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. And this is because only 3 FCC commissioners may be members of the same political party. So once Obama appointed 3 Democrats, he HAS to appoint 2 Republicans. McConnell essentially appointed the other 2 for Obama.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  Thank you for informing me - I was unaware of that requirement. Couldn't he have appointed an Independent/Green Party to the position, though?
  - heurist 9y ago
    What would that have gotten him?
dragonwriter 9y ago
> To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue Yes, he is. > and not one entirely of this administration. Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. > He was appointed by the 44th President That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. > and got a promotion by the 55th. You're off by ten.
- Mononokay 9y ago
  > You're off by ten. Agh, I need to proofread more. > That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? > Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? > Yes, he is. The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he has to promote a Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party? ___ I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.) So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of the government functioning at all. > couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? No. He could have nominated such a person, but they would have zero chance of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any choice of confirmation, find someone who enough Republican Senators liked better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any better. The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power in the American system.
theseatoms 9y ago
What could it even mean for a part of the federal government to be "non-partisan"? Rogue / representing no one?

VectorLock 9y ago

I hope President Camacho wouldn't promote him.

labster 9y ago

Neither of those things are quite true, but he will be taking the Fifth.

tacomonstrous 9y ago

He was chosen explicitly as the Republican nominee on the FCC board of commissioners, so it is most certainly partisan.

ictoan 9y ago

Pai was appointed by Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell. And this is because only 3 FCC commissioners may be members of the same political party. So once Obama appointed 3 Democrats, he HAS to appoint 2 Republicans. McConnell essentially appointed the other 2 for Obama.

Mononokay 9y ago
Thank you for informing me - I was unaware of that requirement. Couldn't he have appointed an Independent/Green Party to the position, though?
- heurist 9y ago
  What would that have gotten him?

dragonwriter 9y ago

> To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue Yes, he is. > and not one entirely of this administration. Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. > He was appointed by the 44th President That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. > and got a promotion by the 55th. You're off by ten.

Mononokay 9y ago
> You're off by ten. Agh, I need to proofread more. > That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell. It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? > Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party. Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? > Yes, he is. The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he has to promote a Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party? ___ I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers? It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.) So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of the government functioning at all. > couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member? No. He could have nominated such a person, but they would have zero chance of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any choice of confirmation, find someone who enough Republican Senators liked better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any better. The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power in the American system.

theseatoms 9y ago

What could it even mean for a part of the federal government to be "non-partisan"? Rogue / representing no one?