More appropriately this is a Lina Khan era policy. She had a rocky start but her focus and conviction was unparalleled by any previous iteration of the agency. So much so that she enjoyed more bipartisan congressional support and approval than most staffers in recent memory.
Coincidental timing, I'm sure!
100% of the votes against confirmation were Republican. Fewer than half the R Senators voted to confirm her. Her predecessor, Obama nominee Edith Ramirez, was confirmed unanimously.
I suggest we let the different parties take responsibility and/or credit for their decisions.
And so no Democrat voted against her? Does a party line split ever look good regardless of how it breaks?
> Fewer than half the R Senators voted to confirm her.
Anti-trust issues have become more popular lately. Senators come and go. Like I said she had a rocky start.
> Obama nominee Edith Ramirez, was confirmed unanimously
And she did nothing. Do you see the connection between those two facts? I mean it's not like there was a bunch of consumer problems during Obama's term or anything. :|
> let the different parties take responsibility and/or credit for their decisions.
Party politics are just exceptionally dumb. They don't even reasonably reflect how decisions are actually made on the hill. It devolves into a weird left vs. right fight between citizens while the actual meaningful policies and civil servants are entirely ignored. I don't sense a way to improve anything by doing this.
It just so happens that all the people who pushed against this particular FTC chair are on one side of the aisle. That wasn't up to me!
> I don't sense a way to improve anything by doing this.
In my experience, step 1 of solving a problem is a sober assessment of the facts. We elect people and they make decisions. I'm pointing out what decisions they made.
That is how they became the party fully in support of Trumps policies.
Sometimes the threat or suggestion of something, like DOGE firing an employee who doesn't grant them immediate root access, is enough to subvert the entire system.
Time will tell if independent agencies are as independent as some choose to believe.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensu...
Lina Khan was appointed to the FTC by Joe Biden as part of a broader decision to allow Elizabeth Warren expanded oversight of economic regulation as a way to coalition build with the somewhat more progressive (but still pretty establishment) parts of the Democratic party.
Lina Khan was Biden's pick because she was Warren's pick.
To be clear about my own biases, I think Lina Khan was a fantastic pick and did an amazing job and would have done even greater things if left in place, but to act like she was a bipartisan choice (beyond, say, JD Vance throwing out some rhetoric on the campaign trail) is revisionist history.
JD Vance. Matt Gaetz. Josh Hawley. Ken Buck. They literally started calling them Khanservatives. There is strong anti-trust sentiment in parts of the Republican party. Just like there are "somewhat more progressive parts of the Democratic party."
> is revisionist history.
Or the story is more subtle and nuanced than people care to admit.
I'm still waiting for those supposed "anti-trust republicans" to demonstrate any actual awareness of the anti-competitive situation going on or any nuance beyond "These are blue state institutions therefore woke therefore we should attack them".
Where have any of these names made statements negative of other company's market positions for example? Where is their insistence that Amazon is a trust that should probably be busted?