3 ms·
It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
by 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 agoYou 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 agoSorry, 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.
- plagiarist 2y agoI agree but I'd rather have either one than nothing. I'd in general rather have agencies invent rules in ways that help Americans instead of judges inventing interpretations in ways that help corporations. The courts should have the power to issue injunctions against an agency's policies but the judge shopping should not be allowed.
- jdbdbdudhb 2y ago[flagged]
- lolinder 2y agoI mean, insofar as it wasn't attacking a specific person, yes. But it's a generalized attack on an institution rather than that institution's legal argument. Would you accept ad cortem?