Net neutrality in the US: Look out! It's Neut-gate! Or is that Net-ghazi? In what promises to be the latest version of an unreasonable and largely pointless pissing match between Congress and the White House, the House and Senate have sent document requests to find out just how much pressure the White House put on the FCC over net neutrality rules. On Friday, chair of the House Oversight Committee, …
The legislative and executive branches of US.gov will be at loggerheads until the next election (and probably beyond, given the idiocy of the US electorate). Hopefully the judicial branch will do it's job and quell the loud-mouths on capitol hill (note lower case) for the duration ... I'm not holding my breath.
I vote. Do you?
Do we have those logs of DIck Cheney's "extensive discussions" with the oil lobby just before WMD were detected in Iraq? I don't think the efforts to drill through the stonewall around those meetings ever came to anything?
These discussions are always food for laughter and desperation for the civilian population; just recently there was a dump whereby "Red Button" Hillary just wanted to bomb Libya and kill Ghaddafi per fas et nefas while the Pentagon and Hagel said "please don't it will cause problems". It did.
The FCC was created by Congress and serves at their behest so don't count them out if they really get annoyed. About the only thing that might stop a bill firing the current lot and appointing a new bunch would be the lack of cloture (Republicans having 60 votes to force a bill through the Senate). And if even a few Democrats get their noses out of joint, that can happen.
Other than that minor issue, go Tom!
If they really get irritated, though, they can attach changes they want to a budget reconciliation bill, as the Democrats did with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. There would be a lot of pressure on the President to not veto an important appropriation bill, which could not be filibustered.
"Hopefully the judicial branch will do it's job and quell the loud-mouths on capitol hill..."
Only because it's a partisan bench do they think it's their *job.
A number of Dems here aren't quite Dems, but the NeoCons still need 67 to override presidential vetos.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a requirement on its makeup of five commissions be three from the current party in the White House, and two from the opposing party.
If they really wanted it to be non-partisan, it would be run like the Supreme Court, with the president nominating people to an open post, with Senate confirmation required.
There are always a lot of investigations when one party runs congress and the other runs the white house - congress is able to waste the executive branch's time dealing with all the investigations so they can get less done. See Monica Lewinsky investigation during Clinton's last years, or Iran/Contra investigation during Reagan's last years, plus of course many other smaller ones. This will be the first of many during Obama's last two years, of that you can be sure.
"If they really wanted it to be non-partisan, it would be run like the Supreme Court, with the president nominating people to an open post, with Senate confirmation required."
Do you really think that these three aren't partisan... and that they were put there because of non-partisan *reasons?
http://spectator.org/articles/37501/ganging-justices-thomas-scalia-and-alito
It's the Magical Men from Happy-Land in a big gumdrop white house on Lollipop Lane! With flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats.
Or did I miss the whole sarcastic nature...
********
"This will be the first of many during Obama's last two years, of that you can be sure."
It has already started with bullshit lawsuits because there are a bunch of whiney babies up on the hill not getting thier way and know that they ain't getting *shit done for two years ... actually a lame (duck) legislative branch. Obama doesn't even have to care...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
