[flagged]
[flagged]
Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
51–60 of 222 posts
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#52[flagged]
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#53Earlier 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 prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best.
FTC (and many others) is an independent agency and not (directly) under the president's control.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#54[flagged]
Congress grants authority for rule making by various legislation. The question of if they have the authority is on the interpretation that legislation.
Too much may be pushed into executive orders and rule making but the highly politicized court of the northern district of Texas is also not the answer.
The federal judiciary is also appointed by the executive and is increasingly partisan.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#55The title deserves an award for the most use of negatives.
That’s how I felt about net neutrality reporting
It was unclear which one let the internet traffic be treated equally, depending on the publication or the phase of its existence
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#56I really think federal authorities should start ignoring rulings from Texan judges. The amount of corporate bankruptcy venue shopping alone should tell us the appointment process has corrupted the supposedly impartial nature of the judiciary there
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#57Earlier 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 prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best. FTC (and many others) is an independent agency and not (directly) under the president's control. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_...
Reminder to everyone else, the President nominates agency heads, and the Senate confirms them
There are some agencies I don’t want democrats running, and some agencies I don’t want republicans running. There are many of us that vote based on some agency terms ending, weighed against other things.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#58Earlier 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…
> Yes. I prefer rule of law to rule of whatever-the-party-that-currently-controls-the-presidency-thinks-is-best.
It’s not much worse than the decision of whatever-party-got-to-appoint-a-judge-at-the-right-time. Seriously, considering the constant stream of bonkers ideological decision in various courts, including federal, who decide to ignore both law and precedent when it suits them, your faith seems to be misplaced. Rule of law works when you have a working judiciary. Unfortunately, that branch of the American government is not really in a much better state than the two others.
> Laws are more durable and can be counted on.
Common law is a gentleman’s agreement that courts will follow precedent. It broke down recently in several spectacular occasions, at which point no, laws cannot 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.
That’s an argument for an independent civil service, not for the end of agencies. A change in government should not mean a collapse of the administrative state or wide swings on technical policies. It’s not magic, both the UK and the US (among many others, but these two are easier to discuss from English sources) used to do it.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
>in the matter of law? The question is a matter of law. If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Vague laws are not an excuse for executive agencies to go ham, and I applaud the judiciary for reining in executive abuse of power. That the specific consequence is enforcement of non-competes is ultimately irrelevant.
> If the law is vague, it is the duty of the judiciary to call that out and of the legislature to rewrite the law to be more precise. Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws. Arguably (and since I'm making it, I'll say I'm in favor of this argument), the Constitution would preclude overly strict laws because the Executive is a co-equal branch of government. > Vague laws are not an excuse for executive…
>Why? Nothing in our Constitution requires precise laws.
Nothing in the Constitution requires vague laws either.
In the interests of curbing inevitable abuse of executive power, laws should only be as vague as absolutely required. In the interests of wider public comprehension, laws should be as precise as absolutely possible.
If a law is so vague that there are questions if the executive is overstepping its authority, it's the duty of the judiciary to stop that and of the legislature to rewrite the law more precisely.
>The Congress has the power of the purse and the power to enact laws. The President has the power to implement the laws and to spend the money.
And the Judicial Branch has the power to interpret the law, judge the Constitutionality of the law, and check the powers of the Legislature and the Executive.
The judiciary is doing its duty here. Put aside your personal biases and desires, because none of that matters here. Banning non-competes should be enacted by Congress and then executed by the White House withstanding challenges in the Courts.
The Executive Branch does not have the power to interpret the law.
Incidentally, the Executive Branch does not have the power to spend money either; it must spend money according exactly to budgets passed by Congress.
Re: Judge stops FTC from enforcing ban on non-compete agreements
#60[flagged]
Congress grants authority for rule making by various legislation. The question of if they have the authority is on the interpretation that legislation. Too much may be pushed into executive orders and rule making but the highly politicized court of the northern district of Texas is also not the answer. The federal judiciary is also appointed by the executive and is increasingly partisan.
The answer is the court rules that the FTC overstepped it's power. It's now back to congress to grant that power if that's truly what they wanted, or hell they could have written a better law in the past. Sloppy legislation should not be encouraged.