Posted on 12/16/2017 12:06:21 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Net Neutrality was just repealed. Why isn't that precedent setting? It's very precedent setting to me.
You see, this word, "precedent", too, has been corrupted by the progressives.
What if an entire agency were abolished tomorrow? Would that be precedent setting? In reality, yes it would be setting a precedent. But would it be cast that way? No, of course not. It wouldn't be talked of that way, and it wouldn't be reported that way. But on the other hand any time a court decision, or trillion dollar budgets, or thousands of executive orders, etc etc..... all of that and more is said to be setting precedents. All of it benefits bigger government.
After a few days of reporting, I have only found one news article that is connected to this Net Neutrality repeal, which writes about it being precedent setting.(A news article out of India, BTW) Besides that one single article, the only handful I have seen talk about this repeal in the context of precedents is structured around the concept of if this relied upon some other past precedent already set. Any other time the repeal of Net Neutrality is treated as an outlier or an oddity. It's not normal, and it will never happen again in the view of most.
This action, this one by itself - sets precedents. Repealing sets good precedents, we should follow it and we should have more repeals in our future. Precedents are a two way street, not the current one way street we are led to believe.
If Obamacare does ever get repealed, don't expect it to be called "precedent setting". That would not fit the narrative.
Ping...................
Excellent post. Thank you.
Precedents are for court cases rather than statutes, no?
Statutes can be passed, repealed, and then repassed.
Executive orders may be issued, withdrawn, and reissued.
And yet, the rulings most contrary to the Constitution are held up as precedent to get around the Constitution.
As an example: the War on Drugs. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes or empowers such restrictions on narcotics, and the 18th Amendment would argue against there being such power at all, but instead they use the precedent of Wickard v. Filburn to assert that Congress can regulate intrastate commerce (and therefore all commerce) even though no such power exists.
SOP for apparatchiks:
Control the lingo, control the tango.
Yes I have. Some have defined the precedent, of the shrinking of big government, as the shrinking of big government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.