Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(42,714 posts)
87. My position on what specifically?
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 09:44 PM
Mar 2015

Last edited Tue Mar 17, 2015, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

On whether rules struck down as invalid should be removed from deleted from the code of federal regulations or (in the case of statutes)from the US Code? I was all for it. So when the Bush administration's FCC adopted a rule that raised the number of local tv stations that a single entity could own in a market and Media Access Project got it thrown out by the courts, I was all for the FCC deleting the invalidated rule from the books and restoring the old rule.

And by the same token, I was pissed when the Bush administration left rules on the books after the courts struck them down. For example, a Bush-era rule called the "Broadcast flag" would have made it harder for consumers to record tv shows. It was invalidated by the courts in 2005 because it was inconsistent with the FCC's statutory authority. But it wasn't until 2011 when the Obama administration took the step of having the rule deleted from the code of federal regulations.

So, there, you have my position. Now, on the examples I gave you, what is your view. Should these old, invalid rules have been left on the books to mislead people?

hey thanks obama- anyone notice this in the article Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #1
Obama administration just thumbed their nose at us? CubicleGuy Mar 2015 #2
yea you missed the finger he stuck in our faces Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #3
with this issue they have continued the bush era-and court orders. riversedge Mar 2015 #4
The entire detailed legislative and legal history is what some folks are missing. Obama's White Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #5
They aren't missing anything, they are here for one reason, to bash Obama... tridim Mar 2015 #13
"well-settled legal interpretations." sounds like bush's excuse for water-boarding Romeo.lima333 Mar 2015 #27
You're missing the entire judicial branch treestar Mar 2015 #70
"The Most Transparent Administration in History" dirtydickcheney Mar 2015 #6
Post removed Post removed Mar 2015 #9
"Well, I meant transparentish" progressoid Mar 2015 #31
Apparently there's no room for strong dissent here, with #9 being hidden. Sad. 7962 Mar 2015 #46
+1. candelista Mar 2015 #49
It was a lie. blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #34
Court rulings treestar Mar 2015 #65
No you missed the ruling -- or agree with it. former9thward Mar 2015 #85
Well, Judicial Watch will have a sad. It's a 2009 ruling. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #7
Codifying settled law, in the legal sense, is now cause for outrage directed personally at Obama for some folks it seems. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #11
ODS has no respect for facts. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #14
This is seriously fucked up. Rotten to the core. Ed Suspicious Mar 2015 #8
Something smells rotten, but maybe you are facing in the wrong direction, sir? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #10
Erm, so all that Clinton-hunting, breaking down the walls of the White House Baitball Blogger Mar 2015 #12
Is that even possible? mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2015 #15
So uhm ...no more Nixon tapes? L0oniX Mar 2015 #17
I think that was pre-FOIA. mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2015 #20
Ummm. No. No more demanding documentation about how the WH onenote Mar 2015 #55
"consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law." elleng Mar 2015 #18
I'll be waiting for tomorrow's Federal Register. NT mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2015 #19
Why wait. You can read it now. onenote Mar 2015 #24
Here it is. mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2015 #66
+1 treestar Mar 2015 #67
This ruling applies to the WH Office of Administration and implements a 2009 apellate decision onenote Mar 2015 #21
Thanks. Nothing like FACTS! elleng Mar 2015 #23
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? candelista Mar 2015 #56
Most transparent liberal POTUS evaaaaa!!1!1!1!1!!! obxhead Mar 2015 #22
Trying to protect Hillary's campaign, perhaps? Blue_Tires Mar 2015 #25
It sickens me to see a post TM99 Mar 2015 #26
Ditto - on your headline only. The ODS on DU in times like these is truly sickening. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #28
couldn't agree more marym625 Mar 2015 #33
Transparency my ass - just another perty speech by a slick-talking front for the Oligarchs. blkmusclmachine Mar 2015 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Mar 2015 #37
+1. candelista Mar 2015 #57
No, it's consistent with court rulings, which is another branch treestar Mar 2015 #68
Thank you for outing yourself TM99 Mar 2015 #79
Americans should simply trust the President to be transparent MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #29
Notice anything missing from this thread? marym625 Mar 2015 #35
Blue links? OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #41
Exactly! :) marym625 Mar 2015 #43
Much of The Swarm? MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #45
"Mom's Taxi" has to make a stop at the grocery store, OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #50
I'm OK now. I figured out a strategy. MannyGoldstein Mar 2015 #53
hide! marym625 Mar 2015 #52
Preparing for Hillary. Fearless Mar 2015 #30
That's just about right marym625 Mar 2015 #32
Riiiiight....... DeSwiss Mar 2015 #38
Sigh...Sad That....... KoKo Mar 2015 #39
I'd say you've covered all the main rationalizations....... DeSwiss Mar 2015 #40
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! OnyxCollie Mar 2015 #42
About the Office of Administration Sunlei Mar 2015 #44
Everyone should read your post. candelista Mar 2015 #48
I don't see anything to be scared of. You can FOIA out of those offices. Sunlei Mar 2015 #60
What? candelista Mar 2015 #74
sorry, we're on a different page. Sunlei Mar 2015 #75
"You can get any information you want"? candelista Mar 2015 #93
Yes its the freakin' center of the universe. Now name one person who has worked onenote Mar 2015 #54
So why does he wanna keep it secret? candelista Mar 2015 #58
In 2009 the courts held that the statute doesn't apply to it OA in a suit brought in 2007 onenote Mar 2015 #59
Citation? candelista Mar 2015 #73
Included in the federal register announcement of the removal of the rule onenote Mar 2015 #76
I recall that Obama promised transparency in his administration when he ran for president JDPriestly Mar 2015 #47
A court ruled in 2009 that the FOIA statute didn't cover the WH Office of Administration onenote Mar 2015 #51
Well, if it is legal, then by all means it is right. TM99 Mar 2015 #61
Lovely rant. Has nothing to do with the act of taking an unenforced and unenforceable onenote Mar 2015 #64
Bullshit. TM99 Mar 2015 #80
Wronger than wrong. onenote Mar 2015 #81
I am not a lawyer. TM99 Mar 2015 #82
I am not surprised. onenote Mar 2015 #84
And you do not surprise me either. TM99 Mar 2015 #88
I read it before you did I'm quite certain. onenote Mar 2015 #90
Pathetic really. TM99 Mar 2015 #94
I take a lot of things seriously. You seem to not to be able to. onenote Mar 2015 #95
Do you have the name of the case in which that ruling was issued? JDPriestly Mar 2015 #72
Included in the Federal Register item announcing the removal of the rule onenote Mar 2015 #77
Thanks. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #78
"Got a problem? Take it up with Congress and the courts." former9thward Mar 2015 #86
My position on what specifically? onenote Mar 2015 #87
Court rulings treestar Mar 2015 #69
The promised transparency has dwindled year by year. JDPriestly Mar 2015 #71
lack of any thing father founding Mar 2015 #62
ABC did something on his twitter account jakeXT Mar 2015 #63
Do any cowards care to hide MY post about this? MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #83
Politics is nothing more than a team sport these days. TM99 Mar 2015 #89
Well said, ™... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #91
Kill him for his bad verses! stevenleser Mar 2015 #92
The tortured justifications for this in this thread are just sad. marmar Mar 2015 #96
First and foremost, Obama is a politician. Before he is anything else we want him to be. Calista241 Mar 2015 #97
So, no one can watch the watchers? Octafish Mar 2015 #98
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»White House office to del...»Reply #87