5 ms·

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 procedu

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.

miltonlost 1y ago
[flagged]
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - michaelsshaw 1y ago
    I wouldn't describe any member of our current court system as "the best"
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    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.
- rayiner 1y ago
  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.
  - syntheticcdo 1y ago
    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?
    - rayiner 1y ago
      If we’re talking about what “should be constitutional,” we’re no longer talking about “the law” but instead policy or philosophy. Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. By the way, this isn’t even some U.S.-centric take. The constitutional law in most western democracies leaves regulation of drugs to the discretion of the legislature.
      - syntheticcdo 1y ago
        I'm asking about your personal opinion: in Griswold v. Connecticut should the Supreme Court have upheld states right to ban access to all contraceptives, including condoms?
        rayiner 1y ago
        Your question asks whether I “believe such a restriction should be constitutional.” I’m obviously not in a place to decide what “should” or “should not” be in the constitution—the document is what it is. If your question is whether I think the Griswold was correctly decided, the answer is obviously not. Regulating access to medications obviously falls within the police power of state governments, and I don’t think the constitution has a special carve out for particular types of medications. In fact I think this was an extraordinarily easy case as a legal matter, and the fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong demonstrates how intellectually sloppy a lot of mid-20th century precedent was.
        CWuestefeld 1y ago
        Griswold found a person has a right to decide, together with their doctor, what course of medical treatment is best for their particular needs. Do you support that right at all beyond contraception (and abortion)? For example, do you support my doctor's right to prescribe to me all the pain medication that he and I think is appropriate for my painful, terminal disease? Or to prescribe me LSD or other hallucinogens to treat my PTSD? It seems to me that Griswold should be invalidating most of the role of the FDA, except in an advisory capacity. But I don't think that's what most people who were aghast at overturning Roe believe. Would you have been willing to allow, say, Texas or Tennessee, to decide that their resident doctors could tell their patients that there was no need for taking the COVID-19 vaccine, or to wear masks, or social-distance; and there could be no repercussions against patients for exercising those rights? Support for the arguments Roe was based on seems to be highly dependent on where you want to apply those arguments. That doesn't seem very intellectually honest.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - hobs 1y ago
    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.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      After we have 60 years of Federalist Society judges looking for what they can find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the second amendment and INA, maybe then I’ll care about the accusation of hypocrisy.
    - pessimizer 1y ago
      > bringing up a whataboutism This is red-baiting. > while the supreme court runs roughshod over current law This is question-begging. > 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? This is straw-manning.
    - CWuestefeld 1y ago
      While I, too, think that Trump has gone off the rails, pre-Trump history is very different from what you're implying. Historically, it's been the position of the Left that the Constitution should be treated as a "living document" to be interpreted in context of the needs of the times. It's been the Right who have rejected such interpretations and insisted on "originalist" or "textualist" interpretations of the document. Now, Trump and other politicians are bags of wind who say whatever is expedient. But if you look at the Courts and what they've done for the past half-century, it should be clear that the work of the Federalist Society and the justices they've cultivated really has been in that originalist/textualist vein, and it's been the Liberal justices who have strained interpretations of the Constitution. The Left idea that we need to hew to the Constitution is a VERY new change in American politics. And from where I sit it seems rather disingenuously targeted solely at defeating Trump. I'm not seeing anybody on the left saying, "you were right about the 2nd Amendment, and we should all be critical of California and Illinois and NYC for trying repeatedly to circumvent the courts' orders."
  - martythemaniak 1y ago
    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.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      “The law” as most people understand it allows the government to regulate the sale and use of medical products. There’s a libertarian reading of the constitution under which Griswold makes sense. But under it, the FDA is probably unconstitutional.
      - CWuestefeld 1y ago
        Thanks for saying more concisely what I was trying to convey here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44514202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44514202
        rayiner 1y ago
        I thought that comment was an excellent summary.
    - AStonesThrow 1y ago
      [dead]
Devasta 1y ago
That hasn't been true this century at the very least.
cogman10 1y ago
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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- magicalist 1y ago
  > 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.
duped 1y ago
Upon plain inspection, this is untrue.
- rayiner 1y ago
  In the specific context of courts reviewing administrative agency rules, it’s largely true.
dontlikeyoueith 1y ago
> 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.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

miltonlost 1y ago

[flagged]

cindyllm 1y ago
[flagged]
- michaelsshaw 1y ago
  I wouldn't describe any member of our current court system as "the best"
  - cindyllm 1y ago
    [dead]
- nkrisc 1y ago
  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.
rayiner 1y ago
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.
- syntheticcdo 1y ago
  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?
  - rayiner 1y ago
    If we’re talking about what “should be constitutional,” we’re no longer talking about “the law” but instead policy or philosophy. Regulating the “public health, welfare, and morals” is the prerogative of state legislatures. So the question is whether there is anything in the constitution that overrides that general power. Resort to “emanations from penumbras” is a concession that there isn’t. By the way, this isn’t even some U.S.-centric take. The constitutional law in most western democracies leaves regulation of drugs to the discretion of the legislature.
    - syntheticcdo 1y ago
      I'm asking about your personal opinion: in Griswold v. Connecticut should the Supreme Court have upheld states right to ban access to all contraceptives, including condoms?
      - rayiner 1y ago
        Your question asks whether I “believe such a restriction should be constitutional.” I’m obviously not in a place to decide what “should” or “should not” be in the constitution—the document is what it is. If your question is whether I think the Griswold was correctly decided, the answer is obviously not. Regulating access to medications obviously falls within the police power of state governments, and I don’t think the constitution has a special carve out for particular types of medications. In fact I think this was an extraordinarily easy case as a legal matter, and the fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong demonstrates how intellectually sloppy a lot of mid-20th century precedent was.
      - CWuestefeld 1y ago
        Griswold found a person has a right to decide, together with their doctor, what course of medical treatment is best for their particular needs. Do you support that right at all beyond contraception (and abortion)? For example, do you support my doctor's right to prescribe to me all the pain medication that he and I think is appropriate for my painful, terminal disease? Or to prescribe me LSD or other hallucinogens to treat my PTSD? It seems to me that Griswold should be invalidating most of the role of the FDA, except in an advisory capacity. But I don't think that's what most people who were aghast at overturning Roe believe. Would you have been willing to allow, say, Texas or Tennessee, to decide that their resident doctors could tell their patients that there was no need for taking the COVID-19 vaccine, or to wear masks, or social-distance; and there could be no repercussions against patients for exercising those rights? Support for the arguments Roe was based on seems to be highly dependent on where you want to apply those arguments. That doesn't seem very intellectually honest.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hobs 1y ago
  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.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    After we have 60 years of Federalist Society judges looking for what they can find in the “emanations from penumbras” of the second amendment and INA, maybe then I’ll care about the accusation of hypocrisy.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    > bringing up a whataboutism This is red-baiting. > while the supreme court runs roughshod over current law This is question-begging. > 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? This is straw-manning.
  - CWuestefeld 1y ago
    While I, too, think that Trump has gone off the rails, pre-Trump history is very different from what you're implying. Historically, it's been the position of the Left that the Constitution should be treated as a "living document" to be interpreted in context of the needs of the times. It's been the Right who have rejected such interpretations and insisted on "originalist" or "textualist" interpretations of the document. Now, Trump and other politicians are bags of wind who say whatever is expedient. But if you look at the Courts and what they've done for the past half-century, it should be clear that the work of the Federalist Society and the justices they've cultivated really has been in that originalist/textualist vein, and it's been the Liberal justices who have strained interpretations of the Constitution. The Left idea that we need to hew to the Constitution is a VERY new change in American politics. And from where I sit it seems rather disingenuously targeted solely at defeating Trump. I'm not seeing anybody on the left saying, "you were right about the 2nd Amendment, and we should all be critical of California and Illinois and NYC for trying repeatedly to circumvent the courts' orders."
- martythemaniak 1y ago
  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.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    “The law” as most people understand it allows the government to regulate the sale and use of medical products. There’s a libertarian reading of the constitution under which Griswold makes sense. But under it, the FDA is probably unconstitutional.
    - CWuestefeld 1y ago
      Thanks for saying more concisely what I was trying to convey here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44514202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44514202
      - rayiner 1y ago
        I thought that comment was an excellent summary.
  - AStonesThrow 1y ago
    [dead]

Devasta 1y ago

That hasn't been true this century at the very least.

cogman10 1y ago

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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
magicalist 1y ago
> 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.

duped 1y ago

Upon plain inspection, this is untrue.

rayiner 1y ago
In the specific context of courts reviewing administrative agency rules, it’s largely true.

dontlikeyoueith 1y ago

> 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.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]