5 ms·

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in p

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

spacephysics 2y ago
At least with a judge you’d have representation in some form, and have an actual argument for-against it. Agencies will just write whatever they want, enforce it, then after have the legal system involved. At that point the damage is done. Lets try to get closer to laws and rules that have some semblance of representation, even if its not “perfect” yet.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dangus 2y ago
  Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges. At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.
  - quartesixte 2y ago
    Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice. That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives. I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy. And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state. Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).
    - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
      > first-principles thinking What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy? The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?
      - quartesixte 2y ago
        US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments. Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.
    - dangus 2y ago
      You said that each state has equal importance to the union, right? So what would you say if California had a state vote and decided to split into 5 states. There would be states for the LA, Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and a 5th state for all the other areas. California would gain 8 new senators just by dividing its boundaries, and it would probably all be the same political party. Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation? See the problem here? This assignment of senators is arbitrary and has nothing to do with representing states. States aren’t people. This system isn’t really designed with the incentives or guard rails to do what you say it does. There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined. Case in point: JD Vance became a senator with zero public service experience. He has no longstanding relationship with state congresspeople in Ohio. The founders made the constitution in a time before our advanced financial and media landscape. It was also conceived at a time when states were barely even agreeing to be united into a single country. It was also made at a time before mass urbanization. With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states. Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states. It’s not even legally allowed for a state to secede. So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people? I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes. I would say that the best thing we could do is expand the House of Representatives to around 2,000 representatives and then eliminate the senate entirely. Or, perhaps, turn the senate into a subcommittee of more tenured representatives elected by members of the House of Representatives.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  Under the rule-of-law, after such a ruling, you can sue the state for damages. If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. I, for one, am looking forward to companies showing how and how much they were damaged by the ban of non-compete clauses in working contracts. Should be some interesting numbers.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. You can be made whole to the best extent humanly possible. Which is to say, no. No matter how much money you might win, you can't be made whole for the time and human capital wasted on fending off Executive Branch abuse. The ideal timeline is to stop the abuse before it has taken root, bloomed, and spread its hay fever all over the place.
lolinder 2y ago
Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.
- throwup238 2y ago
  It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwup238 2y ago
      You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.
colechristensen 2y ago
Yes I’m fine with the judiciary doing its job. I’m not fine with the executive exceeding their bounds. I’m also not fine with the extremely common regulatory capture of the bureaucrats that have “experts” fall in to cushy jobs if they use their expertise correctly.
dangus 2y ago
With possibly a lifetime appointment, too. IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives. Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks. The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus. The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, which is not surprising since they’re the ones that made dark money campaign contributions illegal via the citizens united ruling. The administrative state is the only place where people actually get into their position on their merit and suitability for the job alone. Everyone below a certain level isn’t a political appointee, they’re hired off a job board based on their accomplishments and proficiencies like everyone else. There’s no donor money involved, the only reward for your service is a stable salary.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >The president is elected by the people The POTUS is elected by the States. >The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, The judiciary is ultimately confirmed by the Senate, who are voted in by the peoples of each State.
  - ljlolel 2y ago
    Senators used to be appointed by the state too
    - dangus 2y ago
      Not by an open jon board like USAJobs.gov. I know someone who did a relatively high profile job in one of the administrative departments. They didn’t know anyone. They just applied online, interviewed, background check, etc - just like a regular job. Their appointment was based on their abilities instead of who they knew, no palm greasing involved.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  [flagged]
monero-xmr 2y ago
The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it. In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat. I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way. It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.
- dangus 2y ago
  > It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees. The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country. By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.
  - mgh95 2y ago
    > The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems. First, what does the regulator think the law says. Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done. Third, what does the law actually say. The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims. An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Dalewyn 2y ago
>in the matter of law? The question is a matter of law. If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.
- techsupporter 2y ago
  > If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government. > Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. Why not? Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate." We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either. In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible. If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely. >The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive. The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts. The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law. Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.

So you are fine with a court deciding it then? A judge that has no expertise in the subject area but in the matter of law? That was appointed by some party in power in the past?

spacephysics 2y ago

At least with a judge you’d have representation in some form, and have an actual argument for-against it. Agencies will just write whatever they want, enforce it, then after have the legal system involved. At that point the damage is done. Lets try to get closer to laws and rules that have some semblance of representation, even if its not “perfect” yet.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dangus 2y ago
Technically the president who handles a lot of agency appointments and guidance is elected somewhat more democratically than the senate, who confirms federal judges. At least the electoral college roughly takes state population into account. The senate just assigns two senators to states with 580,000 people and then does the exact same for states with 38 million people.
- quartesixte 2y ago
  Senators were designed as senior statesmen representing the interest of State Governments, and as a check against the popularly-elected Representatives in the House so that the smaller states could have a voice. That's why general public couldn't even vote for senators until the 17th amendment in 1913. I wonder from time to time the ramifications of turning Senators into basically super-representatives. I think it's always good to keep in mind that the Founders and Framers really did consider the individual States as semi-autonomous entities bound together in a tight FEDERATION that would cooperate on interstate commerce, mutual defense, and foreign diplomacy. And so, Wyoming, Maine and Rhode Island get just as many senators as New York, Texas, and California because they are just as important to this Union as any other state. Edit: Apparently (but not surprisingly) there is some partisanship surrounding this issue and I want to make clear that 1) I came to this thought via just some first-principles thinking 2) I do sympathize with the motivations behind the 17th and the challenges of reverting to pre-17th (in the same way we really can't go back to pre-12th Amendment style POTUS elections).
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > first-principles thinking What does this mean? There are first principles in maths and physics, what are first principles in, what is this actually, political philosophy? The first principles must be universally agreeable and indisputable, like 1 + 1= 2, what would be an example?
    - quartesixte 2y ago
      US Constitutional Law and the very specific field it has created. So, in this case, Articles I, II, and III of the US Constitution + 27 amendments. Which, I concede doesn't fall under a narrow-definition of First Principles thinking but I think the term has been meme'd enough to allow for some play here.
  - dangus 2y ago
    You said that each state has equal importance to the union, right? So what would you say if California had a state vote and decided to split into 5 states. There would be states for the LA, Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, and a 5th state for all the other areas. California would gain 8 new senators just by dividing its boundaries, and it would probably all be the same political party. Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation? See the problem here? This assignment of senators is arbitrary and has nothing to do with representing states. States aren’t people. This system isn’t really designed with the incentives or guard rails to do what you say it does. There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined. Case in point: JD Vance became a senator with zero public service experience. He has no longstanding relationship with state congresspeople in Ohio. The founders made the constitution in a time before our advanced financial and media landscape. It was also conceived at a time when states were barely even agreeing to be united into a single country. It was also made at a time before mass urbanization. With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states. Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states. It’s not even legally allowed for a state to secede. So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people? I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes. I would say that the best thing we could do is expand the House of Representatives to around 2,000 representatives and then eliminate the senate entirely. Or, perhaps, turn the senate into a subcommittee of more tenured representatives elected by members of the House of Representatives.
Propelloni 2y ago
Under the rule-of-law, after such a ruling, you can sue the state for damages. If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. I, for one, am looking forward to companies showing how and how much they were damaged by the ban of non-compete clauses in working contracts. Should be some interesting numbers.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >If you can show damages you will be made whole, i.e. indemnified. You can be made whole to the best extent humanly possible. Which is to say, no. No matter how much money you might win, you can't be made whole for the time and human capital wasted on fending off Executive Branch abuse. The ideal timeline is to stop the abuse before it has taken root, bloomed, and spread its hay fever all over the place.

lolinder 2y ago

Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. Laws are more durable and can be counted on. Rule by expert sounds appealing until you realize that in the US that comes with an expiration date that is never further than 4 years out, with the results of a single nationwide election potentially triggering a complete rewrite of any and all administrative rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.

throwup238 2y ago
It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
- lolinder 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwup238 2y ago
    You literally just attacked the regulatory agency for going with "whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best." How about evaluating the agency's argument instead of automatically assuming a political appointee from the most politically divisive administration in an era where precedent is being thrown away at record pace on partisan grounds is "correct on the question of law"? "As far as you can tell" I guess.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Sorry, I seem to have miscommunicated: I'm not commenting on the rule, I actually quite like it in principle. I'm commenting on the manner in which the rules are created and their fragility. Laws passed by Congress tend to stick around and can be counted on. I want a law banning noncompetes, not a temporary administrative rule that gets added to the pile of things that could get completely upended with each and every presidential election.

colechristensen 2y ago

Yes I’m fine with the judiciary doing its job. I’m not fine with the executive exceeding their bounds. I’m also not fine with the extremely common regulatory capture of the bureaucrats that have “experts” fall in to cushy jobs if they use their expertise correctly.

dangus 2y ago

With possibly a lifetime appointment, too. IMO the administrative state is a unique little corner of meritocracy in a political system that is full of bad incentives. Congresspeople use donor money to get elected and are incentivized to listen non-constituents with the biggest pocketbooks. The president is elected by the people in similar big money elections with primaries controlled by the political party apparatus. The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, which is not surprising since they’re the ones that made dark money campaign contributions illegal via the citizens united ruling. The administrative state is the only place where people actually get into their position on their merit and suitability for the job alone. Everyone below a certain level isn’t a political appointee, they’re hired off a job board based on their accomplishments and proficiencies like everyone else. There’s no donor money involved, the only reward for your service is a stable salary.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>The president is elected by the people The POTUS is elected by the States. >The judicial branch is appointed by the rest of that system, The judiciary is ultimately confirmed by the Senate, who are voted in by the peoples of each State.
- ljlolel 2y ago
  Senators used to be appointed by the state too
  - dangus 2y ago
    Not by an open jon board like USAJobs.gov. I know someone who did a relatively high profile job in one of the administrative departments. They didn’t know anyone. They just applied online, interviewed, background check, etc - just like a regular job. Their appointment was based on their abilities instead of who they knew, no palm greasing involved.
fallingknife 2y ago
[flagged]

monero-xmr 2y ago

The problem is there is a lack of compromise in the legislature so each side wants quick fixes. Government is slow, so the executive has responded to their voters by trying to assert more power, often a layer removed via regulatory agencies. I would like to see Congress pass more laws, which requires compromise. You can look at the federal government over decades, things don't happen over months or a few years, things are slow. If the issue surfaces over a few voting cycles then some things will pass, often as riders on big must-pass bills, or giant omnibus bills like the Inflation Reduct Act which had all manner of things attached to it. In general I don't want singular agencies making economy-wide changes, nor the executive to do things by fiat. I agree with banning non-competes in principle but if you let such massive economic changes pass that way, then get prepared for all manner of things you disagree with passing the same way. It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office.

dangus 2y ago
> It's a coin flip if Trump gets re-elected and I guarantee the left will suddenly find the wisdom of executive limits on power if he gets in office Actually, the left isn’t inconsistent in the way you are saying. They bemoaned Trump’s efforts to undermine the independence and meritocracy the administrative state. They don’t want anyone to turn the administrative state into an executive power center. For example, the left complained when the trump admin tried to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with political appointees. The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. The left views the administrative state as an additional check on certain areas where our three branches fall short on managing a complex array of the day to day operation of the country. By “left” I do mean the neoliberal left, not “communists who don’t shower much” left, because that’s how far right we are these days. The Republican Party used to believe in the administrative state and still mostly does outside of MAGA-world.
- mgh95 2y ago
  > The left has an extremely consistent view of the administrative state. They want it to exist as a quasi-fourth branch where the president doesn’t have full authority to turn those agencies into an embodiment of their personal will. Yes, and many people don't want the administrative state to exist as a quasi-fourth branch. As someone who now runs a business with multiple lines of business in heavily regulated areas, you basically have three problems. First, what does the regulator think the law says. Second, what administrative actions has a regulator occupying the position previously done. Third, what does the law actually say. The administrative state has very real issues between the first and second points. In particular, the ability for an executive to do things like "imply" greater investigative actions may be taken for engaging in certain lines of business effectively means that laws can be selectively reinterpreted to achieve political aims. An obvious example of this is Operation Choke Point from the Obama presidency. To this day, it makes obtaining MSB bank accounts for handling things as simple as payroll quite difficult. The administrative state is a very real issue for a nation governed by laws.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Dalewyn 2y ago

>in the matter of law? The question is a matter of law. If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.

techsupporter 2y ago
> If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government. > Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. Why not? Congress has the authority to pass the laws it sees fit. Why is it suddenly a problem that Congress passed a law that says "the agency known as the Federal Trade Commission is established and the President, through a set of commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, shall ensure that the these list of goals are accomplished and shall establish such rules as the Commission deems appropriate." We aren't a parliamentary system. The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. What's changed in recent years is the judiciary has come along and decided that a hundred years of Congress writing laws with bullet-point goals and the President acting under those laws is no longer relevant because "Congress didn't write enough words." That's not how textualism works.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either. In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible. If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely. >The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money. And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive. The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts. The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law. Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.