As I said, he doesn't have to fire her. Today is the last day of her term. The rules say she can remain until a new commissioner is approved by the senate.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
U.S. Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to Federal regulatory structure
- Thread starter ted chittenden
- Start date
As I said, he doesn't have to fire her. Today is the last day of her term. The rules say she can remain until a new commissioner is approved by the senate.
But that's exactly what people do. They pay attention to the shouting match, ragebait headlines, half the time don't even read the article and then we wonder why society is so polarized. And we go as far as celebrating and hoping people die.
We're a far cry from the days of debate forums where a point took an hour and the rebuttal took the same time. Why? Because information is so cheap, nobody actually values it. Even in the early days of the internet you had to work to post on a message board. Connect up via dial up, wait for it to connect, wait for the page to load. Type your message, then post it. That could take 10-15 minutes. Now it takes 30 seconds to post a random pointless insult. Or get enraged by clickbait.
You're out of date.
Nowadays, posting random pointless insults is practically instantaneous, thanks to AI flamebots that can do all the work that used to take humans 30 seconds.
c
IMHO Trump won because of one commercial. The clip of Harris saying the prisoners should get sex change operations for "free". I knew that would never get funded and it didn't affect my vote. But when around two thirds of personal bankruptcies in the USA are due to medical bills and or lost wages, that's a hard position for honest law abiding folks to accept. Harris should have known better. That statement almost caused my wife a life long Democrat not to vote. Most folks in prison can't vote. I really don't know the voting group that that statement is supposed to attract. *
IIRC at that time the uninsured parents of Type 1 diabetes children were paying hundreds of dollars a month for insulin that cost $2 to $10 to make.
*All of the LGBTQ people I know are tax paying law abiding folks. Definitely not in prison. Please don't derail this thread argumenting about alternative lifestyles. I don't judge and don't want to be judged. As a New Testament Christian: nobody on this earth is perfect. I try not to throw ANY stones.
IIRC at that time the uninsured parents of Type 1 diabetes children were paying hundreds of dollars a month for insulin that cost $2 to $10 to make.
*All of the LGBTQ people I know are tax paying law abiding folks. Definitely not in prison. Please don't derail this thread argumenting about alternative lifestyles. I don't judge and don't want to be judged. As a New Testament Christian: nobody on this earth is perfect. I try not to throw ANY stones.
Not just AI, but also people in other countries hired to sow disagreement among U.S. and Canadian citizens:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Except for the statutory requirement that the FCC cannot be populated with only members of the same political party. Either Trump has to find a Democrat who sees things his way or the FCC is left without a legal quorum and cannot act. (I note with some satisfaction that this would stall all of Chairman Carr-toon's initiatives such as the forced ABC license renewal.)
All right. If President Trump does not fire Anna Gomez today (and it's looking more likely that he will not due to other U.S. Supreme Court rulings), the next question then becomes: since this is her last official day as a commissioner, will she decide to hang it up and let the FCC attempt to operate with two members (which it probably can--President Trump doesn't care much for Congressional rules about how many commissioners there should be to run the FCC) or does she decide to hang in there until either Mr. Trump fires her (which would probably come sooner than later) or the U.S. Senate votes in someone to take her place. (And I don't think he's even *nominated* someone to take her place.)
I think that with yesterday's Slaughter decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the President, if he chooses, can sidestep any legal requirements regarding quorums or party affiliations on the FCC.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
And I think that could end up being a new case for SCOTUS to weigh in on. There is a key difference: While the control of sitting appointees by the executive branch is a bit ambiguous, the question of the FCC's composition is embedded in the legislation that created it, some 90 years ago.
That's not exactly what it says:
So the FCC can't have five republicans. But it can have three. He's fired all the democrats in other agencies. That's what this ruling was about.
The fact is he doesn't care what the rules say. He acts first and waits to get slapped down.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Of course, I have to agree with you there. It's his modus operandi.
But that raises another question in my mind: Let's presume that's what he does (no stretch of the imagination there). Until he gets a third Commissioner approved by the Saenate, the FCC lacks a quorum. And who says the Senate will go along with him? There are cracks forming in that party's unity. But let's again presume he gets his way and Carr's agenda moves forward as a result. Then, if SCOTUS rules against it (and that would not likely happen until the next administration, which may not be Republican), is there grounds to have all those actions reversed as a result?
It's admittedly an interesting mind experiment -- as are all "what if" scenarios -- but not easily dismissed, especially the way things have been wobbling from side to side in the past year and a half.
Once again, Gomez can stay until she's replaced. That's what she's said she intends to do.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
My statement was based on the likelihood that Trump would fire her anyway. Of course, that's another legal question: Can the executive branch fire an appointee whose term has expired but continues to serve per the statutory language in the enabling legislation that created the agency they serve on?
BTW, the FCC press office released this statement from her this morning:
Most likely the next Democratic President would be planning on doing that anyway. All the Court ruled was that if the voters choose to put them in charge then they'd have the right to proceed with their agenda. People vote and the policies they voted for actually get implemented. What a concept!