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.
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.
I linked you directly to an article discussing the lawsuit.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
I’m blocking you now. Good bye.
First, let me apologize i thought it was another poster who had linked to that.
Second, i addressed it, i didn’t ignore it. You ignored my rebuttal. But i will try again here:
Even what you quote here doesn’t say the court ruled it was true.
You’re just exposing your own ignorance, as often the court doesn’t bother to determine if the plaintiffs claims are true, they just assume they’re true and then rule they don’t have a case because they aren’t claiming someone broke the law.
This doesn’t say it is true, only that it doesn’t matter whether it’s true because it has no bearing on their ruling.
Intellectual coward.