U.S. Supreme Court takes sledgehammer to Federal regulatory structure

[cc333]

Honestly I think the scariest thing is not his politics but that enough people didn't see an issue with his attitude and immaturity and supported it. And got on social media and acted exactly the same way. That tells me a lot about the state of society.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Ever since the beginning of his first term, I've noticed a drastic increase of rudeness and intolerance in the general public that more or less mirrors his rudeness and intolerance. And this in the San Francisco Bay Area, where he is almost universally hated. It only gets worse the farther into the rural central valley you go, except the target is flipped (they almost universally hate Democrats out there).

There's no middle ground anymore. Just two groups of people standing at opposite extremes, shouting angrily at each other about pretty much everything.

The fact that those two crowds aren't even the majority makes it even worse, because it feels like the majority of opinions are actively being ignored.

In other words, if the true majority had its way as it should, none of these idiots probably would've been elected in the first place, and life would be a whole lot better right now.

c

 

[FreddyE1977]

The policies they're implementing, particularly with regards to the FCC and media, were laid out in Project 2025. The president continually disavowed any knowledge or acceptance of those policies.

Trump in debate again denies involvement in Project 2025

In Tuesday's ABC News presidential debate, former President Donald Trump said he had not read the playbook for the next conservative administration.

abcnews.com

After the election, he changed his tune. So the people got the classic bait & switch.

The typical Trump voter (most of them anyway) fully expected that he would do something like this and they supported him. You honestly didn't think that if he won he was going to allow the status-quo to continue, did you? You can pretty much tell at this point from the parties' ideological makeup what one or the other will do should they win.

 

[TheBigA]

The typical Trump voter (most of them anyway) fully expected that he would do something like this and they supported him. You honestly didn't think that if he won he was going to allow the status-quo to continue, did you?

Here's what a news poll at the time said:

'Nearly all' voters know about Project 2025 and majority have negative view of it: report

Project 2025 – the blueprint to install a far-right authoritarian government under the next Republican administration — is repulsive to most voters, according to a new survey.NBC News recently published the results of a poll it conducted earlier this month, and one part of that survey involved...

www.alternet.org

So according to this, nearly all voters were familiar with Project 2025, and more than half viewed it negatively. Which may explain why the president avoided it until after the election.

Notably, the plan still registered some unpopularity with respondents who identified as "MAGA Republicans," with 28% having a negative view of Project 2025.

Based on this it's hard to generalize about people based on party. I'm not sure you can predict what a politician will do based on party. Even now, we have a bunch of repubs who are no longer in lockstep with the administration. Mainly because they know it's not popular with their voters.

I think the issue with respect to the role of the FCC and TV networks isn't very supportive. To assume that 51% of the public approves government control of broadcasting just because they voted for the president is a big stretch. We know about 30% favored defunding CPB, and yet it got done. Now those congresspeople who voted to defund will have to face the voters.

 

[ted chittenden]

What I initially found surprising was that he didn't start firing people right away after the Slaughter decision. Then I read in Daily Kos (they got it from somewhere else but I don't remember where now) yesterday that instead of using the expanded powers the Supremes had given him, the President was lashing out (through his social media) about the areas where he lost. As long as he's fixated on those losses, Anna Gomez will still be on the FCC, even if she is a lame duck.

 

[TheBigA]

As long as he's fixated on those losses, Anna Gomez will still be on the FCC, even if she is a lame duck.

I agree. He says he trusts Brendan Carr. Brendan Carr hasn't said anything bad about Anna Gomez. So until that changes, she's still at the FCC.

However, I believe this decision by the court has holes in it. Based on the quote I posted, there's room for a challenge that would further define the limits of presidential authority over independent agencies.

 

[FreddyE1977]

In my view, that's a misinterpretation of the role of the FCC. The commissioners aren't there to "exercise the President's power." That's the absolute wrong view of their role. They are there to implement and enforce the Communications Act as spelled out by congress. The only role the president plays in any of this is he gets to appoint the commissioners. Perhaps that's where the law needs to be changed. Because the current commission believes its there to carry out the president's agenda. That's not what the Communications Act says. This is why the commission is made up of career professionals. The only political appointees are the five commissioners.

This is what it says on FCC.gov:



Not the president. If I'm wrong, please show me where. The FCC was once under the Commerce Department. Once it was moved out and became independent, it was no longer there to "exercise the president's power."

The separation of powers line in the Constitution is drawn much more clearly than that. It's the job of the legislative branch to write law. It's the job of the executive branch to enforce it. The Court basically restated this when he said the commissioners were there to "exercise the President's power". Basically every executive branch employee is there to do that. Essentially the Court has been saying that there IS NO SUCH THING as an "independent" Federal agency. That's because if there were it would be totally unaccountable to you as a voter. Voters have the ultimate control through their choice of a President.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Here's what a news poll at the time said:

'Nearly all' voters know about Project 2025 and majority have negative view of it: report

Project 2025 – the blueprint to install a far-right authoritarian government under the next Republican administration — is repulsive to most voters, according to a new survey.NBC News recently published the results of a poll it conducted earlier this month, and one part of that survey involved...

www.alternet.org

So according to this, nearly all voters were familiar with Project 2025, and more than half viewed it negatively. Which may explain why the president avoided it until after the election.



Based on this it's hard to generalize about people based on party. I'm not sure you can predict what a politician will do based on party. Even now, we have a bunch of repubs who are no longer in lockstep with the administration. Mainly because they know it's not popular with their voters.

I think the issue with respect to the role of the FCC and TV networks isn't very supportive. To assume that 51% of the public approves government control of broadcasting just because they voted for the president is a big stretch. We know about 30% favored defunding CPB, and yet it got done. Now those congresspeople who voted to defund will have to face the voters.

I believe Trump's actual comment about Project 2025 at the time was that neither he nor his campaign produced it. Which is technically true. It was the work of ideological allies, so it is no surprise that at least some of the ideas it expressed got incorporated into policy. In the same way that Biden and his campaign did not create the 1619 Project but you can see it's fingerprints all over his administration's policy.

Frankly if you had actually interviewed voters about Project 2025 I doubt that half could have even told you what it was.

It is estimated that only about 30% of the Colonists actively supported the American Revolution. It has always been activated minorities who drive events.

You are correct, the members of Congress who defunded NPR will face the voters, which is exactly how the framers of the Constitution intended the system to work. I doubt the issue is sufficiently important to enough people to motivate them to start tossing people out of office though.

The truth is that government has ALWAYS been in control of broadcasting. Some Presidents (FDR, LBJ) were particularly aggressive in how they asserted this control.

 

[TheBigA]

I believe Trump's actual comment about Project 2025 at the time was that neither he nor his campaign produced it.

It depends on when he was asked.

Speaking at a Heritage event in April 2022, Trump said: “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do... when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America."

He thinks he got a mandate in 2024.

Frankly if you had actually interviewed voters about Project 2025 I doubt that half could have even told you what it was.

Did you read the poll I posted? Obviously not.

I doubt the issue is sufficiently important to enough people to motivate them to start tossing people out of office though.

It depends on the state, since most of the money went to the states. NPR & PBS have moved on. Neither are budgeting based on federal money.

The states where public broadcasting is owned by the states tend to be red.

The truth is that government has ALWAYS been in control of broadcasting. Some Presidents (FDR, LBJ) were particularly aggressive in how they asserted this control.

Only two presidents have used the FCC in vindictive ways. One was Nixon.

 

[TheBigA]

Voters have the ultimate control through their choice of a President.

No they don't. We still have the electoral college. The only branch where the people have a direct say is congress.

The FCC is supposed to report to congress. If you study the discussions about the 96 telecom act, at no time did anyone ever talk about giving Bill Clinton the power to control the FCC, or to use it to exercise presidential power.

 

[Mediafrog+]

No they don't. We still have the electoral college. The only branch where the people have a direct say is congress.

You are aware there is a movement among the political extreme right to repeal the 17th Amendment?

 

[TheBigA]

You are aware there is a movement among the political extreme right to repeal the 17th Amendment?

That's an interesting story. That would mainly affect the senate. It has no chance of passage.

The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, established the direct election of U.S. Senators by the people, replacing the original system where state legislatures chose senators. This change was intended to reduce corruption and deadlocks in state legislatures and increase democratic participation. Before 1913, senators were accountable primarily to state governments rather than directly to voters.

There was also a movement to repeal the electoral college.

 

[Patrick 29582]

What I initially found surprising was that he didn't start firing people right away after the Slaughter decision. Then I read in Daily Kos (they got it from somewhere else but I don't remember where now) yesterday that instead of using the expanded powers the Supremes had given him, the President was lashing out (through his social media) about the areas where he lost. As long as he's fixated on those losses, Anna Gomez will still be on the FCC, even if she is a lame duck.

There are reflecting pools to bust and World Cup games to manipulate.. he's distracted right now.

 

[davideduardo]

There are reflecting pools to bust and World Cup games to manipulate.. he's distracted right now.

The president, king, prime minister or whatever a nation's leader is called is the head of the national team of each country in the World Cup. The FIFA has no owners, and as such is like the United Nations of soccer. The team members have no responsibility except to the national team, as they sideline their affiliation with any specific team in order to play at the World Cup.

There have been a number of protests about calls such as red cards in the past. The most recent one that was successful was in the 60's. Having so much video today from so many cameras and devices makes it easier to see if a call was wrong. In this recent case, the sports press in true soccer nations has almost uniformly said that they believe that the call was excessive and punitive, with the consensus being that a yellow was the more correct penalty.

 

[TheBigA]

The president, king, prime minister or whatever a nation's leader is called is the head of the national team of each country in the World Cup.

Maybe in an honorary way, but not in any formal way. The US team is run by the US Soccer Federation, which is an independent non profit. It doesn't receive any federal funds. It's all strictly donations. They'll accept help from anyone who will give it, and this might have been helpful. But it's really not his role to do this. He's supposed to be running the government. However, since they lost, should we blame the president for the loss?

 

[davideduardo]

Maybe in an honorary way, but not in any formal way. The US team is run by the US Soccer Federation, which is an independent non profit. It doesn't receive any federal funds. It's all strictly donations. They'll accept help from anyone who will give it, and this might have been helpful. But it's really not his role to do this. He's supposed to be running the government. However, since they lost, should we blame the president for the loss?

While objections have been filed by national leaders a number of times in the past, the prior successful one was about 60 years ago.

Still, as the "head" of a country, the president, prime minister or whatever a nation calls their top leader, that person is figuratively the representative to FICA. As someone who became involved in soccer in the 50's and was on the board of a FICA member team, I learned that there are both bylaws and traditions; FICA is over 125 years old!

One of those traditions is considering the head of the nation that sends a team to the Cup to be the "leader" of that team.

 

[TheBigA]

One of those traditions is considering the head of the nation that sends a team to the Cup to be the "leader" of that team.

As I said, it's honorary.

• Trump’s role: Political backer and public advocate for U.S. interests in FIFA, not a voting member of FIFA’s executive committee.

 

[davideduardo]

As I said, it's honorary.

And based on over 125 years of history and tradition.

 

[TheBigA]

And based on over 125 years of history and tradition.

Go back to the OP of this thread to see how this administration views history and tradition.

The court's decision reversed a 90-year-old precedent that had protected multimember and term-limited agency heads from being fired, except for misconduct or malfeasance in office.

Here's how Brendan Carr handles the history and tradition of the FCC as an independent agency:

In Senate testimony, FCC chairman says his agency isn’t independent

Brendan Carr, whose office regulates the broadcast TV industry, previously defended the agency’s status as an independent body.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[cc333]

Here's how Brendan Carr handles the history and tradition of the FCC as an independent agency:

In Senate testimony, FCC chairman says his agency isn’t independent

Brendan Carr, whose office regulates the broadcast TV industry, previously defended the agency’s status as an independent body.

www.nbcnews.com

Clearly he's pandering to the president, who seems to think that the only independent agency in this government is himself.

c