Sure. It seems pretty clear to me that they have not; the Supreme Court said so back in 2005 (but Chevron Deference mooted it), and the Appeals Court just said so last week (now that Chevron Deference is dead).
The courts could possibly be carrying out an anti-regulatory political agenda. I do mean "possibly"; not everything they do is politically driven and sometimes the politically-driven decisions coincidentally align with reasonable outcomes.
Plenty of serious people thought the FCC actions and Chevron Deference were legally fine. Plenty did not. (My unstudied observation of the latter is that it was the same people who always oppose all regulation in every way possible, but I'm not really sure of that.)
If someone just takes one side's argument, doesn't mention the other side, and says that makes it clear, doesn't that tell us only the political preferences of speaker and their desire to push them?
I haven't read enough on it to know. I could believe the FCC overstepped their authority. It is interesting that SCOTUS gives the president the effective authority to break laws, but not regulate rich people. Perhaps the president should just break this law?
No. At any rate, if you're hanging your hat on a return of something like Chevron Deference, it's not going to happen. The FCC's authority to regulate the Internet was a controversial reach even before the courts decided they didn't have to take the word of regulators for them. For my part, as part of the opposition of the incoming administration, I'm just fine with the idea that their appointees --- some of whom will have terms extending past this administration --- have only the specific authority delegated to them by Congress, which my side will hopefully retake in just a couple years.
I think we can probably wrap this up here. We don't need to convince each other of anything.
The point isn't to convince each other. Have a good weekend!
> ... I'm just fine with the idea that their appointees --- some of whom will have terms extending past this administration --- have only the specific authority delegated to them by Congress, which my side will hopefully retake in just a couple years.
Yes, it's amazing that people overlook the goose and gander principle. The Senate filibuster is a bigger example - the Dems talked about eliminating it in the middle of an election where they were likely to lose the Senate.
