4 ms·

Proof that some portion of the Federal government still works properly. This was a terrible idea from day one. It may be populist low hanging fruit to kill t

Proof that some portion of the Federal government still works properly. This was a terrible idea from day one. It may be populist low hanging fruit to kill the merger, but populism certainly hasn't stopped other terrible ideas from coming to fruition (Citizens United)

eli 11y ago
If the reports are to be believed, it was the staff at the FCC and DOJ who were recommending to block the merger. These are usually career employees who serve across administrations; it's more likely they were just doing their job, not cowing to public demands.
- digikata 11y ago
  I do think that public demands help to prevent the FCC and DOJ upper management from sidelining staff recommendations.
aaronbrethorst 11y ago
populism certainly hasn't stopped other terrible ideas from coming to fruition (Citizens United) What does a SCOTUS justice care about populism? They're appointed for life. They care about their legacy, or the legitimacy of the institution[1], but it's not like Americans are going to show up at the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches in hand. If you want to make sure another Citizens United decision doesn't happen any time soon, it would be worthwhile to think carefully about your choice for President next year. edit: also, as others have noted, this deal wasn't under the purview of the Supreme Court, but instead the FCC, FTC, and DOJ. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/06/john_roberts_broke_with_conservatives_to_preserve_the_supreme_court_s_legitimacy.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...
- Retra 11y ago
  Who have you chosen for president next year? Or are you also waiting to be told who the actual candidates are?
  - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
    Barring some astonishing calamity, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, former key aides of three of the top tier candidates have established Super PACs in support of their former bosses[1], basically eradicating any air gap between the campaigns and 'dark money'[2] that used to exist. Clinton, at least for now, is pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/magazine/the-next-era-of-campaign-finance-craziness-is-already-underway.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/magazine/the-next-era-of-c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money [3] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_clinton_says_she_d_want_to_overturn_citizens_united_her_super_pac.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_cl...
    - avn2109 11y ago
      >> "...pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]..." Pardon my cynicism, but I can't even see the mirrors because the smoke is so thick.
      - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
        I'm exceedingly skeptical as well, but it's also notable that the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United was 5-4, split down the expected lines, with Kennedy concurring with the conservative bloc. It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be replaced: Conservative: Scalia Swing: Kennedy Liberal: Ginsburg Breyer Had Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all stepped down and been replaced either in the two months before Citizens United was first argued (or in the following six months before it was re-argued[1]), we would have likely seen a 6-3 decision in favor of the FEC. So even if Clinton doesn't manage to get campaign finance reform legislation moved through Congress[2], a reshaped Supreme Court would be enough to undo Citizens United for at least a couple decades. If Clinton were elected for two terms, you'd see roughly the following makeup of the court in 2025: Thomas 78 years old Alito 75 Roberts 70 Sotomayor 70 Kagan 64 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 In other words: Conservative: 3 Moderate-to-Liberal: 6 So, even if a Republican won the White House in 2024, it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be reinstated. [1] Some interesting speculation on why this happened: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/citizens_united_justice_david_souter_s_dissent_in_the_supreme_court_s_momentous_campaign_finance_case_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... [2] Which, given current circumstances, seems unlikely, as it would take another Democratic wave election, even bigger than 2006's to happen (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html)
- Kalium 11y ago
  In the case of SCOTUS, their not caring about populism is a design feature.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
This is on top of breaking the AT&T/Tmobile merger and the new Net Neutrality rules and the ACA, etc. I think its clear the Obama administration is a counter against the GOP-led "anything goes" business culture. >other terrible ideas from coming to fruition (Citizens United) That's SCOTUS for you. Bush put in Roberts and Alito, both arch-conservatives. We're going to have a conservative majority for decades. Beware the usual HN and reddit dialogue of "both parties are the same" as it leads to voter apathy and things like a weak candidate like GWB winning a second term.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Apathy? The turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, with 12M votes more than in 2000; Kerry alone got 8M more than AL Gore had own.
  - byuu 11y ago
    Yeah, all those anti-gay state amendments really drove out the conservative voter base.
- alexqgb 11y ago
  "We're going to have a conservative majority for decades." Not necessarily. On average, the last 10 justices to retire have done so around age 80, and that's with Stevens (who retired at 90) pushing the average up. Assuming (a) that this trend holds, and (b) that next President serves two terms, four of the nine justices may be replaced in that time. After all, come 2016 Breyer will be 77, Kennedy will be 79, Scalia will be 80, and Ginsburg will be 83. Currently, the Court is 4-4-1, with Kennedy being the swing vote, though in recent years he's sided with his Conservative colleagues more frequently. If a Republican president wins, it's possible that Breyer (who leans left) will outlast him. But it's less likely that Ginsburg will. And it's almost certain that Kennedy and Scalia would retire. With the swing and at least one left leaning vote flipping Conservative, the court would be 6-3 Conservative, if not 7-2, and likely to stay that way for another decade. But if the Democrats take the White House and Breyer and Gisnburg retire before 2024 (likely in both cases), then both Kennedy and Scalia will also need to hold out until 2024 just to preserve the 4-4-1 status quo. It's an unlikely prospect, given that they'd be 87 and 88 respectively. If Scalia goes first, the Court would become 5-3-1 Liberal, with the importance of the swing dramatically reduced. If Kennedy goes first, taking the swing vote with him, the Court would become 5-4 Liberal, thus negating Scalia's power should he decide to linger, thereby increasing the chances that he'll retire as well. With both gone the Court would be 6-3 Liberal for a generation. For what it's worth, Liberal voters are intensely aware of these numbers. They'll push Hillary as far to the left as they can during the primary phase of the campaign, but given the prospect of a clear and long-term advantage in the Supreme Court - and a bone-deep fear of what Conservatives would do with the same advantage - you can be absolutely sure that they'll be unified and motivated in the general election. Indeed, given how few major issues unite all Democrats, there's a good chance that reshaping the Supreme Court will become a central issue in the general election, since it's pretty much the only thing that everybody in the party can get behind without reservation. Of course, Conservatives are looking at the same math, and they'll be just as unified and motivated for the same reason. However, the GOP is also burdened by a general lack of popularity (they trail both Democrats and Independents in terms or registered voters), structural disadvantages in the Electoral College, and the fact that voter turnout in Presidential years favors Democrats.

eli 11y ago

If the reports are to be believed, it was the staff at the FCC and DOJ who were recommending to block the merger. These are usually career employees who serve across administrations; it's more likely they were just doing their job, not cowing to public demands.

digikata 11y ago
I do think that public demands help to prevent the FCC and DOJ upper management from sidelining staff recommendations.

aaronbrethorst 11y ago

populism certainly hasn't stopped other terrible ideas from coming to fruition (Citizens United) What does a SCOTUS justice care about populism? They're appointed for life. They care about their legacy, or the legitimacy of the institution[1], but it's not like Americans are going to show up at the Supreme Court with pitchforks and torches in hand. If you want to make sure another Citizens United decision doesn't happen any time soon, it would be worthwhile to think carefully about your choice for President next year. edit: also, as others have noted, this deal wasn't under the purview of the Supreme Court, but instead the FCC, FTC, and DOJ. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/06/john_roberts_broke_with_conservatives_to_preserve_the_supreme_court_s_legitimacy.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc...

Retra 11y ago
Who have you chosen for president next year? Or are you also waiting to be told who the actual candidates are?
- aaronbrethorst 11y ago
  Barring some astonishing calamity, Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, former key aides of three of the top tier candidates have established Super PACs in support of their former bosses[1], basically eradicating any air gap between the campaigns and 'dark money'[2] that used to exist. Clinton, at least for now, is pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/magazine/the-next-era-of-campaign-finance-craziness-is-already-underway.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/magazine/the-next-era-of-c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money [3] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_clinton_says_she_d_want_to_overturn_citizens_united_her_super_pac.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/14/hillary_cl...
  - avn2109 11y ago
    >> "...pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]..." Pardon my cynicism, but I can't even see the mirrors because the smoke is so thick.
    - aaronbrethorst 11y ago
      I'm exceedingly skeptical as well, but it's also notable that the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United was 5-4, split down the expected lines, with Kennedy concurring with the conservative bloc. It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be replaced: Conservative: Scalia Swing: Kennedy Liberal: Ginsburg Breyer Had Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all stepped down and been replaced either in the two months before Citizens United was first argued (or in the following six months before it was re-argued[1]), we would have likely seen a 6-3 decision in favor of the FEC. So even if Clinton doesn't manage to get campaign finance reform legislation moved through Congress[2], a reshaped Supreme Court would be enough to undo Citizens United for at least a couple decades. If Clinton were elected for two terms, you'd see roughly the following makeup of the court in 2025: Thomas 78 years old Alito 75 Roberts 70 Sotomayor 70 Kagan 64 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 In other words: Conservative: 3 Moderate-to-Liberal: 6 So, even if a Republican won the White House in 2024, it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be reinstated. [1] Some interesting speculation on why this happened: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/citizens_united_justice_david_souter_s_dissent_in_the_supreme_court_s_momentous_campaign_finance_case_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... [2] Which, given current circumstances, seems unlikely, as it would take another Democratic wave election, even bigger than 2006's to happen (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html)
Kalium 11y ago
In the case of SCOTUS, their not caring about populism is a design feature.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

This is on top of breaking the AT&T/Tmobile merger and the new Net Neutrality rules and the ACA, etc. I think its clear the Obama administration is a counter against the GOP-led "anything goes" business culture. >other terrible ideas from coming to fruition (Citizens United) That's SCOTUS for you. Bush put in Roberts and Alito, both arch-conservatives. We're going to have a conservative majority for decades. Beware the usual HN and reddit dialogue of "both parties are the same" as it leads to voter apathy and things like a weak candidate like GWB winning a second term.

icebraining 11y ago
Apathy? The turnout in 2004 was the highest since 1968, with 12M votes more than in 2000; Kerry alone got 8M more than AL Gore had own.
- byuu 11y ago
  Yeah, all those anti-gay state amendments really drove out the conservative voter base.
alexqgb 11y ago
"We're going to have a conservative majority for decades." Not necessarily. On average, the last 10 justices to retire have done so around age 80, and that's with Stevens (who retired at 90) pushing the average up. Assuming (a) that this trend holds, and (b) that next President serves two terms, four of the nine justices may be replaced in that time. After all, come 2016 Breyer will be 77, Kennedy will be 79, Scalia will be 80, and Ginsburg will be 83. Currently, the Court is 4-4-1, with Kennedy being the swing vote, though in recent years he's sided with his Conservative colleagues more frequently. If a Republican president wins, it's possible that Breyer (who leans left) will outlast him. But it's less likely that Ginsburg will. And it's almost certain that Kennedy and Scalia would retire. With the swing and at least one left leaning vote flipping Conservative, the court would be 6-3 Conservative, if not 7-2, and likely to stay that way for another decade. But if the Democrats take the White House and Breyer and Gisnburg retire before 2024 (likely in both cases), then both Kennedy and Scalia will also need to hold out until 2024 just to preserve the 4-4-1 status quo. It's an unlikely prospect, given that they'd be 87 and 88 respectively. If Scalia goes first, the Court would become 5-3-1 Liberal, with the importance of the swing dramatically reduced. If Kennedy goes first, taking the swing vote with him, the Court would become 5-4 Liberal, thus negating Scalia's power should he decide to linger, thereby increasing the chances that he'll retire as well. With both gone the Court would be 6-3 Liberal for a generation. For what it's worth, Liberal voters are intensely aware of these numbers. They'll push Hillary as far to the left as they can during the primary phase of the campaign, but given the prospect of a clear and long-term advantage in the Supreme Court - and a bone-deep fear of what Conservatives would do with the same advantage - you can be absolutely sure that they'll be unified and motivated in the general election. Indeed, given how few major issues unite all Democrats, there's a good chance that reshaping the Supreme Court will become a central issue in the general election, since it's pretty much the only thing that everybody in the party can get behind without reservation. Of course, Conservatives are looking at the same math, and they'll be just as unified and motivated for the same reason. However, the GOP is also burdened by a general lack of popularity (they trail both Democrats and Independents in terms or registered voters), structural disadvantages in the Electoral College, and the fact that voter turnout in Presidential years favors Democrats.