Comment by rayiner
5 days ago
Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not. The main oversight they have is ensuring compliance with procedural rules and statutory technicalities.
5 days ago
Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not. The main oversight they have is ensuring compliance with procedural rules and statutory technicalities.
Upon plain inspection, this is untrue.
In the specific context of courts reviewing administrative agency rules, it’s largely true.
> Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not
This is just an obvious lie.
They're not supposed to, but they obviously do. Usually against common citizens' interest.
Yeah, I take a dim view of the courts in general these days. However, this looks black and white. The FTC was trying to rush in the change before Trump took office and that backfired on them.
Now, the rule is good. There is no reason why the current FTC shouldn't implement it. It literally harms nobody except for businesses addicted to dark patterns.
> There is no reason why the current FTC shouldn't implement it. It literally harms nobody except for businesses addicted to dark patterns.
Well:
> The FTC issued the proposal in March 2023 and voted 3-2 to approve the rule in October 2024, with Republican Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson voting against it. Ferguson is now chairman of the FTC, which has consisted only of Republicans since Trump fired the two Democrats who remained after Khan's departure.
That hasn't been true this century at the very least.
[flagged]
[flagged]
There many ways in which the US is not “the best”. That should be obvious to any American, it’s not hard for us to see if you’re looking for it.
I wouldn't describe any member of our current court system as "the best"
1 reply →
The non-Federalist Society folks think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. How can right wing judges even compete with that?
I think we may have drastically different understandings of what “the law” is.
Note that the court case that first invoked “emanations from penumbras” involved a Connecticut law banning the the use of contraceptives. Do you believe such a restriction should be constitutional?
9 replies →
Yes of course, bringing up a whataboutism while the supreme court runs roughshod over current law is totally the point right? We need these stout champions of conservatism because the left is so crazy that we need to check them, that's why we need to rewrite the constitution to fit whatever trump is doing this week, right?
Bringing up the boogieman of the left while the right is literally doing their best to bring the law under their heels permanently is pretty rich.
3 replies →
Yeah, those crazy woke judges that think that the government should not be able to bust into your bedroom and arrest you because you used a condom.
4 replies →