The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.
Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”
Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.
The truth is the winners have already won, and no one else ever will. They do not intend to make the American Dream obtainable for anyone but Those Approved.
It’s a big club. You aren’t in it. I’m not in it. everyone you or I know isn’t in it. You know when your in it, because you benefit from this. If you will likely lose benefits, like all of us will, you aren’t in the club.
How do you fight those in power uninterested in giving up that power?
You take it from them.
The truth is the winners have already won
this. it’s all a big game and there are only winners and losers. good and evil are just ideas. if you believe in something, you go for the throat to make it reality. otherwise, you’re just a loser on the internet bitching about it. more of you need to wake up to this fact.
No one wants to be the vanguard
then we need to keep encouraging chaotic good as an option until we are all ready to do something.
Aight lmk when we’re “all” ready I guess and I’ll go right after you. /s
all you gotta do is just support a radical by-any-means-necessary approach and be vocal about it until it reaches critical mass.
I miss you George Carlin.
This sucks ass. It’s hard to not become blackpilled from Friday’s rulings.
Is there a word to be People’s Will pilled? Cause that’s where I’m heading.
Personally, I take comfort that the executive will be weakened as it looks more and more likely that we’re about to have a wannabe dictator coming to office.
It’ll only be weak for the presidents they don’t like
Some thing needs to keep the court in check and remove the bad apples.
It’s called Congress. Too bad they are made up of spineless, greedy pieces of shit to do anything about any of this.
This is why the right came for Chevron, they can buy Congress. Much harder to buy a whole agency.
the american people are just as spineless. anybody could open up a few seats. all it takes is a little patience and planning. those of you waiting on a corrupt system to fix itself are the biggest dipshits on the planet.
What’s the suggestion here?
do something or accept your dystopia
Frank Castle stuff methinks
mass protests, riots, a god damn revolution. But Americans are pansies and won’t do that. The common excuse of “but I have bills to pay, I have a job to go to, I can’t go riot/protest/revolt”
Cause I’m sure all the people who have taken part in all the successful revolutions in all of history their first concern was “but I gotta pay my rent”. It’s a death by a thousand cuts. the powers that be KNOW americans are pissed off and they also KNOW americans won’t do anything about it, by design. all it takes is a revolution, but Americans won’t do that, they’re too afraid.
Every judge is a bad apple. Just fossilized cultists in robes judging everybody else.
Grow up.
Dont americans always claim that is why they have the 2nd amendment?
the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.
the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.
Will be?
I haven’t had any interest in visiting the place since Bush was president.
And tou don’t even have Putin. If you need one, you can get one for free if you choose pickup. Also you might consider Boris “parlament is not place for discussion” Grizlov.
The illusion of democracy has entirely worn off. When are we taking to the streets with guns?
don’t take to the streets. take to the dark web. be smart. don’t be a mob. know which targets bring the most results. clandestine and precise. once upon a time, we had very smart people at the helm of the internet. i fear those people don’t exist any more.
That takes an amount of cunning and resources that few people have. I think most people with the ability to do that benefit from the current status quo.
When are we taking to the streets with guns?
After we disarm the extremely weaponized cops, military, etc… And we don’t even need guns.
lol. you’ll just legislate the revolution, amirite?
We need guns because we’ll never disarm the state’s goons.
Democracy isn’t when appointed officials always side with other appointed officials.
It’s when appointed officials side with the people, and the people are educated and thoughtful.
Or so I’m told. I’ve never actually seen one. It’s like a unicorn.
They say so many things about magical place called European Union, where all unicorns live.
As the saying goes, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
These are hugely unpopular moves from the supreme court.
I feel like I’m living in the prequel to The Handmaid’s Tale
It totally makes sense to have a bunch of elected non experts go through the minutae of federal departments and how to implement policy. /s
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
They become less “supreme” with every decision anymore
That just means they come with sour cream and tomatoes
And beans. Lots of fetid sour beans
But both sides are the same.
God damn it, i wish Clinton had won so bad. It would be the exact opposite and corporations wouldn’t be getting this free reign. Fuck.
I wish Gore had won, every other headline wouldn’t be about the impending climate doom and what we’re not doing to stop it
Oh wait, he DID win and the fucking court stole it
Don’t forget that 3 of the current justices (Barrett, roberts, kavanaugh) were on bush’s legal team in 2000 Bush vs Gore
I wish the democrats didn’t force her, the candidate that was predicted to be weakest against Trump and the only one likely to lose, through the primary with every trick they could. The democrats tried to skew and steer their own voters and we all lost because of it.
The only one likely to lose? I think you have your facts confused on that one.
I don’t. She was predicted to be the weakest against Trump during the primaries.
You’re going to have to prove that. I want to see numbers.
Bernie consistently had better projected general election margins during the primary. https://web.archive.org/web/20160217041242/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Yes that’s nice, it was not the assertion though so I don’t know why you’re supplying it.
What exactly is the distinction between “weakest against Trump” and “had worse polling margins against Trump?” If you specifically want to dial in on the ‘likely to lose’ claim that isn’t what you were asking for in the comment I replied to.
She demolished sanders in the primary. Get over it. The belief that she only won because of some dirty tricks or that sanders was screwed is just nonsense. I wish he had won, and i voted for him, but unfortunately reality tells a much different story. This belief he was screwed is no different than the belief that trump was screwed in 2020.
The delegates all predicated their votes to make it look like Hillary had already won before the elections even started
So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.
It’s grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.
The race started with Hillary having a commanding lead because the superdelegates were allowed to pre vote. It was clearly intended to manipulate the voters. Let’s not feign ignorance.
She demolished him in votes. You take super delegates out, she still destroys him.
Pretending that you know that it was meant to influence the voters is nonsense, but pretending that this actually swayed enough that it might have made it even close is just downright ridiculous.
You’re just being purposely obtuse. If you see that she already has a commanding lead before the first vote is cast then you might just not vote if you prefer someone else. Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.
Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.
The media hyped up the race. An actual race is far more profitable for them than the reality that Clinton was clearly going to win from the start.
Yeah, the early primaries really do benefit establishment democrats, and it seemingly painted a damning picture for Bernie. I think if we had synchronized primaries, this benefit would be much smaller and Bernie would’ve had a significant shot.
Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.
Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She’s arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she’s there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.
Yeah, that was disappointing. But I do think it was a tough situation. Sanders wasn’t a Dem, he was an independent. I think Warren as an established D could have had more pull and commanded more from the establishment side. Unfortunately she picked party over platform.
One of the earliest was NH, which he did very well in, and which gave rise to “sanders has a chance!” And really shocked everyone.
He probably did way better because he was hyped as having a legitimate shot after that, he even though it clearly wasn’t the case.
She demolished him. The order of the voting had little to do with it, if not possibly even helping him.
This is a deeply unpopular take but it’s the correct one. I caucusef for Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 and the amount of Hilary/Biden supporters to Bernie supporters in both respective years was dishearteningly high.
The only people who show up for primaries and caucuses are predominantly white, Christian heterosexuals of retirement age.
They’re absolutely fucking terrified of anything remotely approaching progressive policy and they’ll never, ever let us run anyone who doesn’t make them feel safe with all their old white money.
It’s possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.
Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn’t make her a better candidate. The General proved that.
If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.
Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate
I’m sure you’ll be able to back this up with some facts.
If she “demolished” Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the “best” candidate. That’s your logic here.
At no point did i say she was the best candidate. I even explicitly said that i voted for Sanders, implying i thought he was the better choice. I’m just pointing out the reality that democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders.
Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn’t mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.
Clinton’s primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it’s evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that’s fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn’t decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.
If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren’t aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that’s basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.
I’m sure you’ll be able to back this up with some facts.
You keep throwing shit out but don’t back any of it up. Why would i continue to follow your ever shifting justifications?
If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren’t aware of why.
One thing i will address is this. I understand that everyone has differing priorities, desires for me, and opinions than me. Clinton would have been a perfectly fine POTUS, so it’s not hard for me to accept that other people have a different opinion.
The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.
I understand that everyone has differing priorities
And what, specifically, are those for Clinton? Protecting corporate oligarchy? What exactly do you believe Clinton truly offers to the average voter that Sanders does not?
The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.
Yes, there is. He was painted as an “extremist” by the establishment, his supporters were repeatedly portrayed as “Bernie Bros” despite being a majority women in order to give the impression that his following has some kind of latent misogynist leanings (which Warren played on again in 2020 by lying about him saying that a woman can’t be president). The party super delegates were allowed to pre-vote to give the impression Clinton had a greater lead than she really did. Primary debates between Sanders and Clinton were scheduled for times with the least viewership, he recieved very few interviews on major outlets and when he did it was almost always just some talking head aggressively criticizing his “extreme left wing” policies.
There was the email leak that demonstrated that there was hostility towards Sanders from within the DNC and that members were looking to help Clinton’s campaign.
Do we not remember that it was concluded in court that the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was working to sabotage Sanders. The court didnt deny the rigging was hapoening, it just decided it was ok to rig things against candidates because in its view the party can pick whatever candidates they want.
It’s not a question of whether or not the DNC and their corporate media allies working to undermine the Sanders campaign, it’s established, yes, they were. That’s how public opinion is manufactured; by leveraging the media and party apparatus to create a false narrative to decieve voters and manipulate people’s perception of who and what ideas are viable. Pretending there weren’t powerful interests aligned against Sanders plays into that narrative.
TBH with how Obama treated Netanyahu versus Trump admin backing single state solution: I bet the war on the Gaza Strip wouldn’t be happening, either. Not at the same scale, at least.
Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should’ve run, she’s directly responsible for Trump.
You think she would have nominated people like kagan or people like gorsuch? Did you see how these votes went down partisan lines? I see for your other responses to me that reality ain’t necessarily your thing, but just try to think about this rationally for a second.
That being said, if sanders had won the wh, his choices would have likely been even better.
God damn it, i wish Clinton had won so bad. It would be the exact opposite and corporations wouldn’t be getting this free reign. Fuck. \s
FTFY.
Literally all of these have been a long ideological lines. Do you really think she would have appointed conservatives? Are "muh both sides"ers really this out of touch with reality?
What does stare decisis mean? Asking for 6 justices.
I think it means something similar to YOLO.
the stock market likes it
Truly, the best democracy money can buy. “This was the supreme court”, all of which was appointed by different presidents in different time periods, so a direct consequence of political will
Holy shit i can’t believe someone is trying to both sides this. Trump got three nominees, and put 3 far right wing people on the court. If Clinton had put three people on, this would have all gone absolutely been like left wing of the court now, and these people would have gone the other way. And we still have morons clinging to the nonsense that it’s the fault of both sides. Amazing.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other. The other poster made the ridiculous claim that had Clinton instead appointed 3 justices, giving the court of 5-4 left majority, that it still would have gone down the same way.
What opinions gorsuch has written has no bearing on this. I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.
Inorder as above:
NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK
NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT
NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK
That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
Nor is that what i did. Or wait…are you arguing that they aren’t right wing…because then…wow, I’m not sure what to say.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.
Court overturns roe v wade.
“Well, it’s kind of ridiculous to point out that the court has shifted to the right due to trump appointees because sometimes they all rule the same way.”
I’m not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices. 3 is a significant number, but not a majority, and only half of the 6 votes that said “akshually, public officers receiving gifts after doing a favor isn’t bribery”
I’m not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices.
You should then also realize how little you know about it and not use it to make sweeping generalizations about America politics.
But no, you’re still trying to both sides it. Fucking wow.
Removed by mod
Supreme Court weakens federal regulators
Thank goodness!
