[dragonwriter]

> The FCC has 5 seats that are traditionally occupied by partisan representatives

Its law that they have a limit of 3 per party, the tradition is that they are always of the two major parties, and that the Senate caucus of the party who doesn’t hold the White House has the dominant role in directing the nomination of the members of their party. Since they are also Senate confirmed, and given the existence of the filibuster even when not in divided government, there some strong teeth to that tradition, though conceivably with sufficient support in the Senate a Democratic President could fill vacancies (with 3 Democratic incumbents), with, say, Socialists or Greens rather than Republicans.

[hummusandsushi]

Thank you for the additional context, I did not know about these particulars. I think it would be very interesting how the tradition might change if someone from a different party (or even an independent) managed to fill a seat.

Clearly I am not an expert in the American political process, but the language of the parent comment has been used to deliberately mislead and I wanted to make it clear in what way it may be misleading.

[meepmorp]

Pardon me, but I did not deliberately mislead anyone. The guy to whom I was responding to was speaking of a corrupt person nominated by a corrupt president, and I was pointing out that Pai had been on the FCC for years before Trump made him chairman. (I'm assuming the corrupt president was meant to be Trump, because duh).

[rbanffy]

You were technically correct, as Professor Farnsworth would say, "The best kind of correct", but he was named chairman by Trump. Until that point, he was, to quote Ford Prefect, "mostly harmless".