| AG Schneiderman, While not from the US, as a jurist I feel compelled to do my part to prevent abuse of process and misrepresentations from occurring in the public sphere. Is there any role available for American or Canadian jurists to help with your office's efforts in this matter? Tim Wu's assertion that this battle will ultimately be won or lost in the courts comes to mind: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutra... Would developing a case against Mr. Pai directly be an option you are considering? The revolving door/regulatory capture issue which is often raised in tandem with critiques of the FCC's current and past behavior is clearly contemplated at 47 U.S.C. § 154, (b) (2) & (b) (3). -=-=-=- I feel as if this situation is our creation as jurists. The Anglo-American legal tradition has a strong current against recognizing a general theory of abuse of rights/abus de droit which is often foundational in civilian legal traditions, instead relying heavily upon balance of rights analysis. Mr. Pai's argumentation relies heavily upon the balance of rights analysis, which discounts the importance of the purpose of the commission, his office and the rules in place in favour of a crude and arbitrary weighing of benefits and harms to stakeholders. In this case: If the benefit to incumbent ISPs is large enough, the balance of rights analysis would handily justify harm to consumers - even if it would conflict with the purpose listed in the FCC's enabling legislation. See: 47 U.S.C. § 151. |