Trump Administration Tells Supreme Court To Wipe Out Decision Upholding Net Neutrality (hollywoodreporter.com)

Repealing net neutrality wasn't enough for the Trump administration. Today, the administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a 2016 appeal court ruling that had upheld Obama era net neutrality rules that barred ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content. Reuters reports: The request was made even though the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to toss out the 2015 rules late last year, rendering the fight over their legality moot. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said the question for the court was "whether the now-superseded 2015 order was invalid because it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate public notice, or violated the First Amendment."

Comments

So?

[sexconker]

In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said the question for the court was "whether the now-superseded 2015 order was invalid because it exceeded the FCC's statutory authority, was arbitrary and capricious, was promulgated without adequate public notice, or violated the First Amendment."

Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.

Re:So?

[Obfuscant]

Sounds like they want clarification on how, exactly, the FCC fucked up so they can use that against them in the future.

Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat" President from simply reinstating the same rules by fiat. If the FCC can point to a SCOTUS decision that said they shouldn't have created rules outside their scope of authority when President Next issues his Executive Order putting them back, then we can avoid the executive branch politicization of this legislative branch football.

Re:So?

[PopeRatzo]

Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat"

Say, did you know that Donald Trump has signed more executive orders in the first 20 months of his presidency that Barack Obama did in his first two years?

If you don't like "rule by fiat", then you should really be uncomfortable with the degenerate Trump regime.

Re:So?

[PopeRatzo]

Many of the same people continue to be upset by it,

They sure are quiet about their disapproval. Who are these mythological Republicans who are now uncomfortable with Trump's rule by fiat?

Re:So?

[PopeRatzo]

Jeff Flake, John McCain, Ben Sasse, the two Koch brothers, none of whom seem mythical.

Three retiring senators that are hated by their own party and a pair of oligarchs.

It's not a very robust group of resisters to the Trump regime from the conservative sphere, now is it? I'd be more impressed if you could name someone who was actually running for re-election.

Re:So?

[Crashmarik]

Sounds to me like they want to get a ruling to prevent the next liberal "rule by fiat"

Say, did you know that Donald Trump has signed more executive orders in the first 20 months of his presidency that Barack Obama did in his first two years?

If you don't like "rule by fiat", then you should really be uncomfortable with the degenerate Trump regime.

Wow

20 months vs 2 years ? Any reason you felt the need to change units there ? 20 months vs 24 makes it much easier to see the difference. Though it doesn't sound nearly as impressive.

Gotta ask before you posted that did you do any checking about the nature of the EOs ? I mean just how many were undoing previous EOs ?

Seems this would important to make the point you are trying to unless you are just looking to troll.

USA. Now officially a dictatorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany here. This kind of ... well ... dictating, is when our government back then crossed the line into a dictatorship.
Like with an event horizon, you aren't aware you crossed it, at the time of it happening. But later on, you realize that this was the point where you would have had to stop it or die trying.

So please take care of yourselves over there. Especially the convenient scapegoat fringe groups. Don't believe what you are being told about "communists/socialists/democrats/republicans/libertarians/muslims/christians/jews".

Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship?

[ClickOnThis]

This.

Authoritarianism can work on anybody. Anybody. All it takes is the following:

1. Make the population afraid, angry, or confused about something.
2. Present yourself as the only way to solve the problem.

Sound familiar?

Re:USA. Now officially a dictatorship?

[_Sharp'r_]

They filed an appeal to an ongoing court cause which they are a party to. This is bog-standard lawyering.

How does that have anything to do with dictatorship, or dictating anything?

At most, the Supreme Court might decide to take the appeal and dictate an opinion to give their results.

Re:He'll get it too

[Anonymous Coward]

As the saying goes, Elections have consequences. America continues to choose candidates who oppose government regulation and favor leaving things up to the markets oligarchs.

There, FTFY. The "free market" is a myth in the USA. On the one hand, you have restrictions such as patents which locked out competitors to Amazon and Microsoft so there was no market in simple shopping or pre-installed operating systems. On the other hand, where clear information is needed, the entire US mass media has been controlled by Oligarchs such as Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch who have much more in common with each-other than with any of their consumers. The US public is so brainwashed that they blame the problems of de-regulation on those few regulations which remain.

Re:Democracy IS tyranny

[Now15]

Hence why a exceptionally good education system is necessary for a democracy to endure.