4 ms·
Didn't the supreme court recently overturn the Chevron Doctrine? Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguo
by ilovetux 2mo ago
Didn't the supreme court recently overturn the Chevron Doctrine?
Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous?
And isnt the cap on number of households reached actually codified unambiguously in federal law?
Seems to me like this should not be allowed to happen.
Let me know if I am wrong.
- Spooky23 2mo agoDon’t worry, the deeply principled conservative justices will never allow some random bureaucrats to legislate.
- YeahThisIsMe 2mo agoWell, you see, under the current administration, everything is allowed.
- curt15 2mo ago> Doesn't that mean agencies like this are not free to set their own rules when a law is ambiguous? Agencies can say whatever they want but courts are not required to defer to them when this inevitably goes to a lawsuit.
- ilovetux 2mo agoThanks. That actually makes it make more sense, chevron doctrine applied to courts and what they can/can't do. Edit: made applies past tense
- disposition2 2mo agoIf this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule. > The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004. 1. https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communications-commission-rescinds-tv-ownership-rule-limiting-mergers/ https://www.baltimoresun.com/2026/08/06/federal-communicatio...
- warkdarrior 2mo agoAnd what is this Congress going to do about it? Nothing.
- jibal 2mo agoCongress already did something -- it wrote the law. It's the courts that rule against lawbreakers. However, it's the executive branch that takes action against lawbreakers, and that branch is currently utterly corrupt.
- throwaway27448 2mo agoFirst, all three branches are obviously quite corrupt. Second, congress can obviously still avt to speak on behalf of us and they refuse to do so.
- jibal 2mo agoI explained the roles of the branches. This throwaway comment doesn't refute what I wrote. And the way Congress "speaks" on our behalf (that is, they are supposed to represent us) is through legislation. No way am I giving the GOP-controlled Congress a pass on its numerous failures to oppose corrupt appointments or to impeach corrupt officials--including of course Carr--but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how the government works is, and clearly many people lack that. Also, while the GOP is corrupt through and through, including the GOP-dominated SCOTUS, saying that the "branches" are is inaccurate -- the lower courts are still a bulwark against corruption. This simplistic throwaway handwaving in no way invalidates my entirely accurate comment about the roles of the branches. I won't waste more time commenting on this.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- fnordpiglet 2mo agoThe key is who has standing in such a case. Likely broadcasters are the ones most likely to be impacted. Also depending on how the statute is written markets with total monopoly could have standing, individuals to cities. It’s not just the executive branch who is able to sue in court. Everyone and every company can. But you have to demonstrate you suffered harm and are a legitimate plaintiff. For changes like this I suspect there’s a lot of people and companies with standing.
- Finnucane 2mo agoThe law isn't ambiguous.
- jackb4040 2mo agoThe difference in this case is that the victims are the general public, who don't even own a single lobbyist and can be safely ignored.