It does seem as though your claim here rests on your statement above. Please cite where I have said “that NOW, the Executive action is illegitimate, …”
You will not be able to. You will only be able to find that I have said that it is unwise, along with reasons I feel that to be so.
I see what you are saying, I just ask that you talk to actual people, and stop shouting at strawmen.
Your post has no relevance to this thread or to the attitudes expressed by the pro-NN posters in this thread.
Touche!
But no. The agency needs to have that or similar power, because no statute can capture every possible situation.
The commissioners should understand that they should wield that power in a way that doesn’t force square pegs into round holes. And I agree that to the extent Congress confirms commissioners, they should be inquiring as to the views those candidates for commissioners have about the role and philosophy an agency should play in apply the law Congress writes.
Generally, from reading the original FCC order and the circuit court opinion in US Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674 (Court of Appeals, DC Cir 2016). But I was asked what MY definition was, as I recall, so I felt no need to explicity quote any source.
Let me just add that this reflexive impulse to criticize thinking that you don’t like as “liberal” has no place in this discussion.
Read this poll:
The support for net neutrality is essentially equal among Democrats, independent, and Republicans. And if anything, the opposition to NN is slightly larger among Dems than the GOP.
Are you going to retract your insult about wrongheaded liberal thinking on this issue? Or maybe you should just correct your I’ll-considered temper tantrum to say that you despise “American” thinking on NN?
Show me the crosstab for that poll in which recipients were asked questions to establish what they understood net neutrality to be. Were the supporting “the philosophy” or the rules process?
Jesus Christ, you are the only person who has a peculiar interpretation of the term net neutrality, and you expect pollsters to quiz respondents on the philosophical basis for regulatory decisions?
Give it up. This is sad.
Fair enough, I thought by your use of quotation marks that you were quoting that exact definition from somewhere. As I, and others, have stated, that is definitely not the definition that we are using while discussion NN in this or any other thread.
Sure. But now in this discussion, you seem to be having problems with the process. A process that started with Congressional action, and ended with the FCC utilizing the power given it by Congress. That seems to me how a legitimate Agency oversight process should work. Congress grants powers to an Agency, and that Agency uses those powers.
I’m not sure which part you disagree with at this point.
Assuming the ISPs are the square pegs and the Title II category is the round hole, how were the ISPs suffering by having their metaphorical corners rounded off? What made them so different from other Title II companies that the ISPs suffered in the grouping?
And I’m not sure you have standing to disparage what you describe as idealistic reality-divorced liberal thought processes if you believe creating a legal framework for ISPs was feasible with the Congress of 2015. Talk about the perfect being enemy of the good…
It’s not in the state’s purview to permit it. It MAY be in the state’s power to ban or regulate it. Translating your implied view (“nothing is allowed unless the state permits it”, as opposed to “everything is allowed unless the state forbids it”) to net neutrality plays into your opponents’ hands, since they can readily respond that the ISPs are not allowed to put controls on their traffic, unless the state lets them. Thus, ending net neutrality is not some philosophically just result in the name of maximal freedom, but just state generosity that can be casually extended and just as casually withdrawn.
Police officers have the power to arrest. Persons (generally) may not lawfully resist even an illegal arrest.
If an officer arrests someone and then demands money or he’ll file false charges, I have a problem with the process that he’s following, but I do not regard my problem as arising from the broad arrest powers we grant to police. My problem rests with how he is exercising the broad powers he was granted.
Are you suggesting the FCC was trying to shake down the ISPs? If not, how does the example of a corrupt cop apply?
I’m a conservative. Take that for data.
I see. So you feel the main problem was the FCC misusing the lawfully obtained powers it had?
If that is the case, I fail to see the relevance of that objection to your OP:
With what you are saying now, it wasn’t “potentially a good thing” but in fact, according to you, a good thing, because the new FCC Chairman rolled back misused powers of the FCC?
If Bricker bothered to acknowledge the ISP abuses that led to NN I would think he means the ISPs are the bad cops. But just like we allow bad cops to continue to arrest people on made up charges and shoot black men in the face with minimal (if any) repercussions then we should allow ISP to continue to abuse their power and do whatever they want and screw their customers. At least that’s what I think his metaphor means.
To the contrary, it was potentially a good thing. There some aspects of it that were unadulterated good: rolling back misused powers of the FCC. There were some aspects that were not good: zeroing out the regulatory landscape and having to start from scratch, but this might result in more tightly focused corrections, which would be good. There were other aspects that were terrible: empowering no-nothing celebrities to weigh in on the issue with sound bites that sway people with only a passing familiarity with the issue.
So a fair summation of those competing effects would be: potentially a good thing, but not an unmitigated good thing.
And . . . I don’t want to tell you how to debate, but aren’t you kinda reaching with this one?
Not really, I’m just trying to understand your objections. Since at the start, they seemed to be with NN itself. Now, they seem to be with the process that the FCC used to protect NN.
So, are you simply against the FCC reclassifying ISPs as Title II, and happy that it has been changed?
Are you against the very premise of NN, utilizing the common definition?
Are you against an Agency selectively enforcing regulations?
Something else?
Yes.
No, I’m merely concerned about how we get there.
A thousand gallons of “yes.”
Well, then your debate is really the selective enforcement of regulations. If you had that topic, then you could use NN as an example 
It also seems to me that if the FCC enforced all Title II regulations on the ISPs, then you would have a higher state of approval of the reclassification than you do now with the FCC only enforcing the minimum amount needed.
And if that is the case, then you actually favor more government regulation then the minimum needed to solve an issue
Also, let’s just step back and look at one aspect of Bricker’s argument: that the FCC granting forbearance to some regulations for ISPs is used as an example of the corrupt or malign intentions of the FCC in their 2015 decision.
Let’s just think about this for a second. The government grants big business a free pass to certain onerous regulations.
And one conservative says that’s a bad thing.
Had the issue been about granting a favored corporation an exemption from, say, certain labor or environmental regulations, most conservatives would be popping champagne corks and tweeting #MAGA! But no, not in this case.
What a world we live in. A play right out of Fox News’ playbook: take what would commonly be hailed as an attribute and twist it into evidence of nefarious actions.