I'm still shocked that he even became a commissioner.
EDIT2: I can't proofread - edited to clarify that DJT isn't the 55th POTUS.
To be entirely fair, he isn't a partisan issue, and not one entirely of this administration. He was appointed by the 44th President and got a promotion by the 45th.
Yes, he is.
> and not one entirely of this administration.
Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party.
> He was appointed by the 44th President
That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell.
> and got a promotion by the 55th.
You're off by ten.
Agh, I need to proofread more.
> That's technically true, but the members of independent commissions that are required by law to not be of the President's party are, by strong tradition, chosen by the other major party's leadership in the Senate, despite being formally appointed by the President. Pai was chosen by Mitch McConnell.
It's a tradition, though, not a law, correct? Why leave in a tradition that will harm American consumers?
> Not exclusively, it is a broader one of the Republican Party.
Again, couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member?
> Yes, he is.
The way he got there in the first place was through a person of the other party, no? Is there a law in place stating that he has to promote a Republican, rather than a person of another non-Democrat party?
I do have to say though, I see your point in theory, minus the tradition bit.
It's a tradition backed by the Constitutional rule that appointees must be confirmed by the Senate, and structure and rules of the Senate which, in practice on matters of appointment (for those offices for which filibusters have not been abolished in Senate rules), allow either major party, if unified, to obstruct appointments (and, additionally, legislation.)
So, sure, Obama could have not appointed whoever McConnell chose—and had even worse legislative prospects and basically guaranteed a vacancy that his successor would have gotten to fill, while weakening a tradition that (given the way power is divided in the US Constitution) is key to various parts of the government functioning at all.
> couldn't he have ignored this tradition and put into place an Independent/Green Party member?
No. He could have nominated such a person, but they would have zero chance of being confirmed. If he chose not to nominate Pai, he would, to have any choice of confirmation, find someone who enough Republican Senators liked better than Pai enough to overlook the violation of tradition and snub of their leadership. Which might be possible, but probably wouldn't be any better.
The President is not a dictator, and there are significant checks on his power in the American system.
Unfortunately the modern GOP was a party with a narrow, declining constituency that was reinvigorated by a tidal wave of money, much more so than the Democratic Party, which is a big tent party with many different constituencies.
Personally, I don’t think that a guy like Pat is fit for public service, whatever his beliefs. He’s too obviously close to past employers.
And this is because only 3 FCC commissioners may be members of the same political party. So once Obama appointed 3 Democrats, he HAS to appoint 2 Republicans. McConnell essentially appointed the other 2 for Obama.
Couldn't he have appointed an Independent/Green Party to the position, though?
Days of common sense are totally gone if fast food chain is educating people these days on how internet works
All my representatives expressed support for repealing title 2, saying things like it hurts competition, creates a higher barrier of entry for competing companies, and the majority said they were going to be working to ensure laws are made to have true net neutrality. From the responses from my representatives, and from the research I have verified from them since then, I can say title two was likely not the solution we were looking for, I would urge you to look for viewpoints against title two as well, and remember to stay skeptical to avoid fake news from all sides of the political spectrum.
Excerpt from one of my congressman, I'd type up one of my senator's responses but he sent me physical mail as a reply which I don't have on me: "Like you, I believe [people in our state] should have access to a free and open internet. Following the FCC's vote, I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact legislation that will preserve net neutrality principles while ensuring that the Internet is kept free from government regulations so it can continue to thrive and improve our connectivity and economy."
FWIW I really, really dislike Sinclair Publishing, haven't liked almost anything Pai has said to date, and am somewhat willing to believe, a priori, that he is corrupt. And still I am not sure if there is really a problem.
Most of my day-to-day news sources are national or international. Most of the media and pop culture I consume too. I'm lucky enough to still have a local newspaper that does some actual reporting, but it's probably not long for this world. Even social media and the water cooler at work are more interested in the widely distributed professional communities I'm a member of then the actual physical community I live in.
My city's nightly news broadcast is close to the only reliable source of information about my municipal and state government in my media diet. In all but the most sensational of cases, it's likely to be the one place I hear about huge classes of events which will have far more of an impact on my life than whatever is on CNN today. For all but the federal level, it's as likely as not to be my sole passive source of information about political candidates.
I like to think I'm an unusually well-informed citizen (by which I mean I'm a politics junkie) and without a half hour of TV news every night I would have absolutely no clue what most of my government is doing in my name with my tax dollars.
The concepts of regulatory capture and revolving doors are hardly new or significantly disputed, though. He's worked for Verizon in the past, and I'd fully expect him to land a nice industry job after his tenure. Doing nice things for industry helps a lot in future employment prospects.
He has joked in the past about being a "Verizon puppet" (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-a...) and given his actions I think there's a bit of truth to the joke.
You may not owe any better to the FCC chair, but you do owe better to this community. If we're to have a place for interesting discussion on the internet, we're each responsible for taking care of it.
edit: let me pose this differently, who else would be investigating Pai in his role as head of the FCC for potential misconduct in that role? That is the job of the IG.
Yes, it is notable, because of the target.
Sure, but this is the first time in my lifetime (43yo) that I have heard of an FCC head being investigated... AND I have spent my entire career online...
So this is actually big news (to me) - in that I already was aware that I thought Pai was a corporate douche-plant... and NOW he is being investigated??? huh. so... yeah - I was speculating previously that he was a "bad dude" - but now he is a Bad Dude
The headline seems to invoke clues towards betrayals and alliances which humans' general hopeless fascination towards potentially in excess of veridicality is frequently exploited by clickbait