We had Pai who was clearly against net neutrality when he ran the FCC and who worked for Verizon as in house counsel prior to his appointment to the FCC..
I don't see why Khan should be recused just because you have a prior opinion, published or not.
Elections have consequences. Executives campaign on doing certain things, and then appoint to executive branch agencies who will do those things. The FTC is a part of the political branch of government. It’s not a court, and Kahn isn’t a judge who has an obligation to reserve judgment until hearing all the evidence. It is supposed to do political things consistent with a political ideology. That’s how our system works.
"That’s because a company could use what it sees as the unfair participation of a commissioner in future arguments to show the case against it was unjust."
Bingo. In my time working with patent litigators, I learned that a good lawyer always raises any issue now, so they can cite it in an appeal later.
I sat in some depositions, and the deponent's lawyer almost always said "objection as to form" for every question (unless they said "don't answer that!") That was so they could use it later if they wanted to.
> Both companies argue Khan's past writing show she's already made up her mind on the tech firms' liability, which the companies say should disqualify her from their cases.
I'm sorry, what about the regulatory enforcement process requires that the regulators not have pre-existing opinions?
Unless Khan has a true conflict of interest, I don't understand how this can possibly be grounds for recusal. They're effectively saying the regulator can't have opinions about the businesses or markets they're regulating, which is absurd on its face.
6 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] threadI don't see why Khan should be recused just because you have a prior opinion, published or not.
Bingo. In my time working with patent litigators, I learned that a good lawyer always raises any issue now, so they can cite it in an appeal later.
I sat in some depositions, and the deponent's lawyer almost always said "objection as to form" for every question (unless they said "don't answer that!") That was so they could use it later if they wanted to.
I'm sorry, what about the regulatory enforcement process requires that the regulators not have pre-existing opinions?
Unless Khan has a true conflict of interest, I don't understand how this can possibly be grounds for recusal. They're effectively saying the regulator can't have opinions about the businesses or markets they're regulating, which is absurd on its face.