Supreme Court weakens federal regulators with Chevron overturning, threatening net neutrality, right to repair, big tech regulation, and more
The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.
Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”
Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.
She demolished sanders in the primary. Get over it. The belief that she only won because of some dirty tricks or that sanders was screwed is just nonsense. I wish he had won, and i voted for him, but unfortunately reality tells a much different story. This belief he was screwed is no different than the belief that trump was screwed in 2020.
The delegates all predicated their votes to make it look like Hillary had already won before the elections even started
So you are saying that millions of people were swayed by super delegates? It was extremely early, NH early, that people started getting pumped that sanders could win. The media hyped up the race despite it never being close.
It's grasping at straws to claim that this is why she demolished him.
The race started with Hillary having a commanding lead because the superdelegates were allowed to pre vote. It was clearly intended to manipulate the voters. Let’s not feign ignorance.
She demolished him in votes. You take super delegates out, she still destroys him.
Pretending that you know that it was meant to influence the voters is nonsense, but pretending that this actually swayed enough that it might have made it even close is just downright ridiculous.
You’re just being purposely obtuse. If you see that she already has a commanding lead before the first vote is cast then you might just not vote if you prefer someone else. Hillary was the DNC’s person and they did what they could to give her advantages.
Projection. Find me one person who didn't vote because of the superdelegates or voted a certain way because of the superdelegates. After that we can discuss whether or not we think it's reasonable to believe it may have swung in 12 points.
Certainly she was their person, but there is scant evidence that they did anything to make this happen. The emails would have revealed a whole lot more if that was the case. Remember, one of the worst things that came out of the emails that was a focal point of the complaints, was saying mean things about sanders. Thats how bad it was. Mean things. Maybe this is all "they could to give her advantages" but if that's the case then the whole argument is silly.
Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.
The media hyped up the race. An actual race is far more profitable for them than the reality that Clinton was clearly going to win from the start.
Sanders also go the most positive coverage in the media.
Yeah, the early primaries really do benefit establishment democrats, and it seemingly painted a damning picture for Bernie. I think if we had synchronized primaries, this benefit would be much smaller and Bernie would've had a significant shot.
Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.
Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She's arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she's there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.
Yeah, that was disappointing. But I do think it was a tough situation. Sanders wasn't a Dem, he was an independent. I think Warren as an established D could have had more pull and commanded more from the establishment side. Unfortunately she picked party over platform.
One of the earliest was NH, which he did very well in, and which gave rise to "sanders has a chance!" And really shocked everyone.
He probably did way better because he was hyped as having a legitimate shot after that, he even though it clearly wasn't the case.
She demolished him. The order of the voting had little to do with it, if not possibly even helping him.
This is a deeply unpopular take but it's the correct one. I caucusef for Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 and the amount of Hilary/Biden supporters to Bernie supporters in both respective years was dishearteningly high.
The only people who show up for primaries and caucuses are predominantly white, Christian heterosexuals of retirement age.
They're absolutely fucking terrified of anything remotely approaching progressive policy and they'll never, ever let us run anyone who doesn't make them feel safe with all their old white money.
It's possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.
Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn't make her a better candidate. The General proved that.
If she "demolished" Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the "best" candidate. That's your logic here.
I'm sure you'll be able to back this up with some facts.
At no point did i say she was the best candidate. I even explicitly said that i voted for Sanders, implying i thought he was the better choice. I'm just pointing out the reality that democratic voters overwhelmingly supported Clinton over Sanders.
Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn't mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.
Clinton's primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it's evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that's fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn't decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.
If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren't aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that's basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.
You keep throwing shit out but don't back any of it up. Why would i continue to follow your ever shifting justifications?
One thing i will address is this. I understand that everyone has differing priorities, desires for me, and opinions than me. Clinton would have been a perfectly fine POTUS, so it's not hard for me to accept that other people have a different opinion.
The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.
And what, specifically, are those for Clinton? Protecting corporate oligarchy? What exactly do you believe Clinton truly offers to the average voter that Sanders does not?
Yes, there is. He was painted as an "extremist" by the establishment, his supporters were repeatedly portrayed as "Bernie Bros" despite being a majority women in order to give the impression that his following has some kind of latent misogynist leanings (which Warren played on again in 2020 by lying about him saying that a woman can't be president). The party super delegates were allowed to pre-vote to give the impression Clinton had a greater lead than she really did. Primary debates between Sanders and Clinton were scheduled for times with the least viewership, he recieved very few interviews on major outlets and when he did it was almost always just some talking head aggressively criticizing his "extreme left wing" policies.
There was the email leak that demonstrated that there was hostility towards Sanders from within the DNC and that members were looking to help Clinton's campaign.
Do we not remember that it was concluded in court that the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was working to sabotage Sanders. The court didnt deny the rigging was hapoening, it just decided it was ok to rig things against candidates because in its view the party can pick whatever candidates they want.
It's not a question of whether or not the DNC and their corporate media allies working to undermine the Sanders campaign, it's established, yes, they were. That's how public opinion is manufactured; by leveraging the media and party apparatus to create a false narrative to decieve voters and manipulate people's perception of who and what ideas are viable. Pretending there weren't powerful interests aligned against Sanders plays into that narrative.
I'm sure the facts don't matter to you, but I'll post it anyway just in case someone else comes in here and thinks your argument is rooted in reality:
"A 2018 book by political scientists John M. Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck found that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."[1] They write that "Sanders's appeal, like Trump's, depended on extensive and often positive media coverage."[1] Furthermore, "media coverage brought Sanders to a wider audience and helped spur his long climb in the polls by conveying the familiar tale of the surprisingly successful underdog. Meanwhile, Clinton received more negative media coverage."[1]
Ohh, a political "scientist" said it, must be a fact. I take back everything I posted, I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn't actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that's what was happening.
Must've just been a coincidence!
The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.
No, a political scientist didn't "say" it, they did a study with an attempt to objectively determine what actually happened, and the evidence led to a certain conclusion. You just don't like that the evidence contradicts how you feel so you're sarcastically trying to hand-wave it away. This isn't to say I know for a fact that what they say is the truth, but their evidence-based position is 1000x more reliable than your feelings.
Neither of these statements is true.
Projection. Notice how I've been providing facts and links, all you've done is provide how you feel about it. You are just like the Trump supporters that think they know the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. It turns out cultists are not all that different from other cultists.
So you ignore the facts you don't like, and take the ones you do. And I'm projecting...
Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down? What is your explanation if it's not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails? Coincidence? What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?
How can I ignore that which you did not provide? All you've done throughout this is give your opinion about what happened, no actual facts. I would be more than happy to address any fact you have, because having had this discussion so many times already, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of it, and if not, I would like to learn how so and change my position. As I already have.
You made a claim as to why, so why not back it up?
You're claim was that she tried to rig the convention against Sanders, and you're already backtracking it. Amazing.
lol You really have no idea how out-classed you are in this. I clearly challenged you to actually provide some facts, and all you are doing is attacking me instead.
Don't worry, I've had this same type of discussion with hundreds of Trump/Sander reality-deniers before, and I know no way in hell you can admit to yourself at this point that you've been fooled for so long. But It's sill funny watching you squirm.
Again, let me be clear: provide your sources for your empty ass claims that I've already called out. Anything short of that is an admission that you realize the facts are not on your side.
I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders. I provided you that. That's not my opinion, that's literally what happened in court and Wasserman Schultz resigned over it. Your eyes literally won't allow you to see it because it completely conflicts with the fantasy you want to believe is true (That the DNC isn't deeply corrupt and diametrically opposed to progressive values).
You've got to be a troll. We're done here.
No you didn't. You made a claim about a court case that doesn't exist. You didn't link to anything or even name it.
You're right, my eyes won't allow me to see the fantasy you've created.
Don't blame me for your inability to support your claims.