Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
computerworld.com
Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
1–10 of 222 posts
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#2[flagged]
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#3[flagged]
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?
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#4[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#5[flagged]
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?
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.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#6[flagged]
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 rules. You can't build anything durable on a system that fragile.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#7Earlier 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…
It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#8[flagged]
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’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.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#9Earlier 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…
...a federal judge is a rule by expert. That's the whole point: you have to pass the bar and are insulated from feedback for life. The alternative, bureaucratic rule, is subject to democratic feedback: if people don't like it, they can vote to change it.
Rule by expert sounds good until you realize that by insulating invasive systems from election cycles, you end up with a permanent opposition and a disillusioned populace who can't trace a causal path from their vote to meaningful change in their live.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#10Earlier 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…
It's the District Court of Texas, a frequent offender. This was judge shopping, not rule of law.
[flagged]