Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I 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?
Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
21–30 of 222 posts
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 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.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#23[deleted]
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#24[deleted]
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 rul…
i.e. you prefer the law to never change
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#26[dupe]
More discussion:
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#27[flagged]
You may not like the executive action rollercoaster, but it’s the one you’re on.
Republicans would torpedo anything like this in Congress unless Democrats can get 60 non-centrist senators (which is not gonna happen). So you can either get this when Democrats are in the white house, or you can just not get it at all.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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, thing…
> 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.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 rul…
i.e. you prefer the law to never change
Not at all! I'd prefer that the power of the executive be stripped down to the point where neither party can accomplish any of their campaign promises without passing laws in Congress.
Both parties have pivoted their entire strategy towards making presidential campaign promises, delivering them as temporary administrative rules (i.e. this from the Democrats, immigration law from the Republicans), and then frantically rallying their base to defend those rules against the possibility that they get upended in the next presidential election. It's chaos.
Neuter the executive branch and the game is up: no promises get delivered on and therefore no world-ending stakes can be played up in the presidential election cycle. My hope would be that with the game ended Congress goes back to actually governing and compromising to deliver something tangible and durable to their bases.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#30[flagged]