U.S. Justice Dept. should stay out of net neutrality debate

Since the DOJ under Alberto

Since the DOJ under Alberto Gonzales and his predecessor hired career US Attorneys based on their political affiliation as testified by a person doing the hiring under oath in Congress, do you expect anything less from them? He hasn't left yet, but did you honestly expect this to change after he said he would leave?

It constantly amazes me how

It constantly amazes me how the Bush-haters apparently slept through the previous eight years. Corruption in government is a new thing? I guess if you ignore history. This country was created because of corruption in government (from England, at the time...) and has never wholly avoided it since. Ever hear of 'Teapot Dome’? Even Carter had his share of scandal; as clueless as he was, I'll give him props for TRYING to be honest, at least. The Clintons were (and are) awash in it. Bush might be able to compete if he was more active, but it seems more like he's simply floating along in it. Maybe it's just the aura the press gives him of incompetence, though.

I have no comment on the

I have no comment on the merits of the Justice Department's argument, and I'm definitely not defending it at all. But I have to point out that the original post is clueless about the way government really works.

As a matter of public policy and procedure, the Justice Department often provides written comments to the FCC regarding major telecommunications decisions -- it's been doing so for many, many years and in numerous administrations of various political persuasions (dating back at least two or three decades, it seems to me). So providing written comments in this FCC proceeding isn't something dreamed up by this particular administration or attorney general. There's nothing wrong with it. It isn't inappropriately "playing politics."

On the contrary, the Justice Department is one of two federal agencies in charge of enforcing antitrust laws (e.g., the Sherman Antitrust Act), which is why it submits comments regarding the effects that new telecommunications policies could have on competition and consumers. (And, it's why the Justice Department sued Ma Bell, but that's another story.)

So, actually, it would be inappropriate for the Justice Department to, as you suggest, "stay out of the net neutrality debate."

Various branches of the government provide written comments to other branches when they have some expertise or positions to share. It's up to the receiving agency (in this case the FCC) to then decide the issue based on consideration of the comments it receives from the public, sister agencies, expert testimony, industry players, members of Congress and anyone else who submits written comments. That's Civics 101.

So disagree all you want, but recognize that the Justice Department has every right to file written comments in the proceeding. That's not the problem.

Surely you didn't think

Surely you didn't think Gonzales was the only source of the intense political partisanship that has permeated the DOJ under the Bush misadministration, did you? The Republican/Corporate money machine has had seven years to penetrate and co-opt every facet of the Federal government. They have truly turned our country into a government "of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations." The Bottom Line & the Quarterly Stock Price are now the watchwords that determine what gets done, to whom, by whom, and for whom. "The public good be damned!" and "More Money!" are their battle cries, contracting and outsourcing are their weapons. Their greed, and their efforts to institutionalize it by buying "lawmakers" to pass bad legislation (DMCA), and virtually the entire Executive Branch to enforce them, have turned the United States into the largest and most powerful "banana republic" in history. So don't think Bush dumping Gonzales is really going to change anything. We're going to be dealing with this kind of crap for years to come.