3 ms·
That level of "argument" from a federal judge should be grounds for instant removal. It's bafflingly stupid, and nakedly partisan and outcome-motivated. Some id
by GeneralMayhem 2y ago
That level of "argument" from a federal judge should be grounds for instant removal. It's bafflingly stupid, and nakedly partisan and outcome-motivated. Some ideas are just categorically bad, and the regulator needs to be able to say that, rather than pretend that the answer is always "halfway in between".
For his next decision, will he forbid the SEC from regulating all insider trading, since they didn't find a way to target "specific, harmful" patterns? And yet somehow I suspect he wouldn't bat an eye if the FDA were to decide that all abortifacients were disallowed, instead of looking at each one individually...
And of course, all of that is ignoring that he's flagrantly lying about the facts of the case, in at least two ways:
1. The summary is misstated. The FTC did not find that all non-competes were invalid. It specifically carved out cases where the balance leans toward non-regulation - namely, non-competes for executives.
2. Some of the "arbitrary and capricious" reasoning claims that no states have passed non-compete bans as broad as what the FTC did, and therefore none of their quantitative evidence can matter. That is, again, blindingly stupid on the face of it - but it's also factually false, because California has had just as broad a ban on non-competes for many decades.
- jellicle 2y agoYes, the SEC and FDA and EPA and all similar regulatory agencies are headed for the chopping block too. You only need one judge to say so. And yes, the quality of the reasoning is going to be just as bad. Sure, Congress passed a law which says in so many words "the agency has the power to do...", but here I am a duly appointed judge, and I can write a decision saying "Congress never gave the agency the power to...", with impunity, and so I shall.
- FireBeyond 2y agoWell, it's even worse. In this case the judge said that even if the agency had the power, she didn't feel sufficiently convinced by their argument (to act within their power) and would block it anyway.
- rahimnathwani 2y agoFor his next decision, will he forbid the SEC from regulating all insider trading, since they didn't find a way to target "specific, harmful" patterns? Insider trading is prohibited by federal statute. Non-competes are not.
- rahimnathwani 2y agoIt specifically carved out cases where the balance leans toward non-regulation - namely, non-competes for executives. This is false. The FTC tried to ban for all workers and senior executives. The only difference for senior executives is that the FTC didn't retroactively invalidate existing non-competes. Under the FTC's rule, no new non-competes could be signed.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago"For his next decision, ..." The judge is female.