“Federal regulations are required to show they are in the best interest of the public before enacted. Not popular - but in the public interest.”
You’re grossly simplifying/overstating what Federal regulators are required to show before they enact regulations, but at a more fundamental level:
If the FCC has the power to arbitrarily decide that entities which had never been covered by a certain block of regulation before suddenly are covered by that regulation, based on nothing more but the executive’s fiat, then guess what? The FCC necessarily has the power to make an opposing decision.
If you wanted a decision that would last, then you should have embraced rule of law in the first place and demanded that such a sweeping regulatory change be enacted by Congress, not just by some executive administrator. But you didn’t do that, so now it’s a bit too late to be saying “But what about rule of law! He should have to follow some kind of process to do that!”
I don’t doubt he’d do something that terrible but is there even anything in it for him other than “owning the libs by enacting a policy most Democrats (along with most rank-and-file Republicans) hate?”
What he’s doing is glossing over the fact that Net Neutrality was put into place during the Bush Jr. Admin. He’s trying to paint a picture that ‘Obama did this by fiat’ despite the fact that it was put into place by Republicans - sued over by Verizon - and then adjusted to follow the courts instructions and re-put into place - don’t let the history be forgotten - this was originally a bi-partisan issue and should still be one today.
The House still has to vote, and it’s a long shot. Trump can veto. But our courts could overrule that.
override of a veto - The process by which each chamber of Congress votes on a bill vetoed by the President. To pass a bill over the president’s objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber. Historically, Congress has overridden fewer than ten percent of all presidential vetoes.
Ummm. Not the courts. It’s Congress unless there’s somewhere else that states that the courts can do so too, though everywhere i’ve checked says its Congress.
Who the hell knows. With Trump, you can’t assume consistency; not even consistent self-interest or consistent malice. What he would do probably depends on the phase of the moon, what he had for breakfast, and who the last person to speak with him was.
Declaring victory at this point is moot. Until the House passes it and there is enough votes to over ride a trump veto (as things stand now there is not), lten victory can not be declared. It is ony the first step. If a veto can not be over ridden perhaps, maybe, miraculously our courts may decide this. This is why trump stacking the courts with right wing ideologues is extremely bad. It will completely undo our Constitution.
Always ask yourself: did Obama support/not support it? In this case, Obama supported net neutrality. Ergo, Trump will be against it. It’s really that simple.
I assume that 10-12 of them knew what they were voting for. The rest just knew that this was some kind of Democrat thing.
I assume this is how the majority of Republicans thought of it.
Senator: Net neutrality, what’s that?
Aide: It’s a regulation on internet companies.
Senator: I’m against regulating things, and I don’t understand technology.
Well that’s an oversimplification. Government decisions aren’t just whimsical. When a decision is made one way, that doesn’t mean it can simply be rescinded or that it even could have legally been made another way. I’m not necessarily saying you aren’t right about this case, but in general you can’t just say, “Well if they have the power to decide then they can decide however they want.”
