4 ms·

> just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do m

> just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement. > Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design It is absolutely intentional and by design. It aligns with other recent changes in the legal landscape, such as ending the ability for lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This requires more groups to accumulate more funds to pursue more lawsuits in more regions, re-establishing standing, re-establishing harms, re-arguing against the same harmful and illegal acts. You're allowed to fight back, but only after you've been harmed, and only at great expense and effort, and with the deck stacked against you at every level.

ryandrake 4mo ago
You basically cannot enforce any laws on corporations when Republicans are in control. ~50% of voters decided that they should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce.
- taneq 4mo ago
  Do you really think 50% of voters thought this was what they were getting? I think most of them thought “dunno what is going on, but this guy seems confident and says it’ll be good if we vote for him”.
  - theultdev 4mo ago
    that's what I voted for and I'm happy about it. same for every single person in my circle. you may not understand the other side because of biases but if you just say "oh 50% must be crazy / be stupid" then noone can have an honest debate. but I guess gone are those days.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 4mo ago
      Which part attracts you the most? The corruption, the self-dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and the rule of law, or the racism?
      - theultdev 4mo ago
        prime example of why there can't be discourse happening right here ^
        bytehowl 4mo ago
        Answer the question.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 4mo ago
        If you're willing to overlook the corruption, the self dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law, and the racism, then I agree. There is no useful discourse to be had with you.
        theultdev 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > I'd rather someone be rich before office not have their son work on a Ukrainian oil company while their father is VP that handles relations with said country. You must be incensed over Jared Kushner's diplomatic roles and $2B investments from the Saudis, then?
        theultdev 4mo ago
        He formed an investment group after leaving government. Hunter worked for an oil company (no experience) WHILE his father was overseeing the country relations. And the company he worked for was under investigation for corruption. Joe bragged about getting that prosecutor fired. Meanwhile Jared got the Abraham Accords and is working on other peace deals. Hunter was a crackhead being paid in diamonds by a corrupt oil company. Not the same is it?
    - taneq 4mo ago
      Thankyou for responding with your view, and I'm sorry that you got downvoted for it. I don't agree that "[people] should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce" because I feel that a degree of safety from bad actors is part of the social contract in a healthy society, and that the strong and capable have a duty to protect and support those less able. I understand, however, that not everyone feels that way and that I'm not entitled to tell them what to think. That's why we vote on stuff, and it mostly works. I still think that a large percentage of MAGA red hat voters (who don't necessarily represent all GOP voters) have bought into the populist rhetoric rather than actively understanding and supporting the actual policy but I'm sure there are plenty of people like you out there who are actively choosing this.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
Ajedi32 4mo ago
> The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement. How does stopping agencies from making up their own interpretation of laws do anything to prevent proactive enforcement? (Do you just mean they're now more limited in their ability to make up new laws and proactively enforce those? I'm pretty sure prohibitions on false advertising are actual laws.)
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4mo ago
  The legislative process (particularly nowadays) moves too slow to react to changes in the real world. The administrative processes provided a gap-fill function that could be somewhat more responsive. That is now lost.
  - Ajedi32 4mo ago
    Okay, if that's what you meant then I don't think it's pertinent to this specific situation, since false advertising laws passed by the legislature already exist. They just need to be enforced. Speaking more generally beyond the context of this specific situation, I agree representative democracy moves slower than other systems of government, but I personally don't think that's sufficient justification for ceding control of the legislative process to an unelected oligarchy. I think the overturning of cheveron was good push back against that trend.

ryandrake 4mo ago

You basically cannot enforce any laws on corporations when Republicans are in control. ~50% of voters decided that they should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce.

taneq 4mo ago
Do you really think 50% of voters thought this was what they were getting? I think most of them thought “dunno what is going on, but this guy seems confident and says it’ll be good if we vote for him”.
- theultdev 4mo ago
  that's what I voted for and I'm happy about it. same for every single person in my circle. you may not understand the other side because of biases but if you just say "oh 50% must be crazy / be stupid" then noone can have an honest debate. but I guess gone are those days.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 4mo ago
    Which part attracts you the most? The corruption, the self-dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and the rule of law, or the racism?
    - theultdev 4mo ago
      prime example of why there can't be discourse happening right here ^
      - bytehowl 4mo ago
        Answer the question.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 4mo ago
        If you're willing to overlook the corruption, the self dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law, and the racism, then I agree. There is no useful discourse to be had with you.
        theultdev 4mo ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 4mo ago
        > I'd rather someone be rich before office not have their son work on a Ukrainian oil company while their father is VP that handles relations with said country. You must be incensed over Jared Kushner's diplomatic roles and $2B investments from the Saudis, then?
        theultdev 4mo ago
        He formed an investment group after leaving government. Hunter worked for an oil company (no experience) WHILE his father was overseeing the country relations. And the company he worked for was under investigation for corruption. Joe bragged about getting that prosecutor fired. Meanwhile Jared got the Abraham Accords and is working on other peace deals. Hunter was a crackhead being paid in diamonds by a corrupt oil company. Not the same is it?
  - taneq 4mo ago
    Thankyou for responding with your view, and I'm sorry that you got downvoted for it. I don't agree that "[people] should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce" because I feel that a degree of safety from bad actors is part of the social contract in a healthy society, and that the strong and capable have a duty to protect and support those less able. I understand, however, that not everyone feels that way and that I'm not entitled to tell them what to think. That's why we vote on stuff, and it mostly works. I still think that a large percentage of MAGA red hat voters (who don't necessarily represent all GOP voters) have bought into the populist rhetoric rather than actively understanding and supporting the actual policy but I'm sure there are plenty of people like you out there who are actively choosing this.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]

Ajedi32 4mo ago

> The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement. How does stopping agencies from making up their own interpretation of laws do anything to prevent proactive enforcement? (Do you just mean they're now more limited in their ability to make up new laws and proactively enforce those? I'm pretty sure prohibitions on false advertising are actual laws.)

sjsdaiuasgdia 4mo ago
The legislative process (particularly nowadays) moves too slow to react to changes in the real world. The administrative processes provided a gap-fill function that could be somewhat more responsive. That is now lost.
- Ajedi32 4mo ago
  Okay, if that's what you meant then I don't think it's pertinent to this specific situation, since false advertising laws passed by the legislature already exist. They just need to be enforced. Speaking more generally beyond the context of this specific situation, I agree representative democracy moves slower than other systems of government, but I personally don't think that's sufficient justification for ceding control of the legislative process to an unelected oligarchy. I think the overturning of cheveron was good push back against that trend.