4 ms·

Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for

Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for a vote by congress, they are proposing telecommunications rules that an internal commission will vote on.

sp332 12y ago
johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare). If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.

4 ms·

Wow. It is an accurate assessment of how our legislative system works, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The FCC is not putting a bill up for

by michael_h 12y ago

sp332 12y ago
johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > johncp brought up Congress, not me. I'm just pointing out that vetos aren't relevant (although mikecb's clarification helped). So why am I getting downvoted instead Because Congressional opponents of neutrality can (and, in fact, already has) attempt to head this off through legislation (so Congress is relevant, so its not wrong to bring them up), but to do directly undo any regulatory action, they will need to pass new law, to which the veto power is relevant, so it is incorrect to "point out" that vetos aren't relevant.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Because your argument has a giant hole in it. Suppose, for argument's sake, that there is big political opposition to this rule. It's reasonable to think that most of this opposition would come from the GOP, going by comments on news websites and so on, and the GOP's demonstrated preference for opposing policies backed by the President (eg the 56th(!) house vote yesterday to repeal Obamacare). If the GOP really decided to make an issue out of this, they have majorities in both houses fo Congress and thus could, in fact, pass a bill that would require a Presidential veto if their caucus were sufficiently united and worked up about the issue. Realistically they probably won't bother, but your claim that it would be impossible to get even a simple majority is unfounded.