←back to thread

FTC announces "click-to-cancel" rule making it easier to cancel subscriptions

(www.ftc.gov)
1737 points pseudolus | 1 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.31s | source
Show context
Spoom ◴[16 Oct 24 14:19 UTC] No.41859299[source]▶
Does the FTC actually have the power to set rules like this effectively now that Chevron deference isn't a thing? I'd imagine e.g. the New York Times, among others, will quickly sue to stop this, no?
replies(10): >>41859333 #>>41859374 #>>41859467 #>>41859485 #>>41859700 #>>41859742 #>>41860115 #>>41861055 #>>41862301 #>>41863207 #
xracy ◴[16 Oct 24 18:40 UTC] No.41862301[source]▶
We gotta stop giving SCOTUS credit for bad decisions when they make unpopular opinions. SCOTUS is not supposed to make legislation, and if they are going to try and override Chevron from the bench without legislation, then we have to ignore them.

SCOTUS' power/respect only goes as far as they're actually listening to the will of Americans. This is not representing Americans if they override. Same for abortion (just legality not anything about enforcement), same for presidential immunity.

We have expectations, and they do not align with SCOTUS, so SCOTUS is not a valid interpretive institution. "The Supreme Court has made their decision, let's see them enforce it."

replies(3): >>41862417 #>>41865037 #>>41866868 #
seizethecheese ◴[16 Oct 24 18:49 UTC] No.41862417[source]▶
This is insane and wrong. The Supreme Court is explicitly not supposed to represent the will of the people. You’re advocating nothing less than a type of coup.

And against my best judgement, I’ll add that in it was roe v wade itself that was essentially judges creating law (shoehorning abortion rights into a right to privacy is a stretch).

replies(5): >>41862699 #>>41863049 #>>41863353 #>>41863653 #>>41865344 #
1. mwest217 ◴[16 Oct 24 19:13 UTC] No.41862699[source]▶
I don't disagree that disregarding the Supreme Court is essentially a type of coup. However, the power which is being contested here is a power that the Supreme Court invented for itself out of whole cloth: judicial review was born in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that an act of congress was unconstitutional. That's honestly a bigger coup than what is being suggested here, and is only perceived as legitimate because a) it's been around for a long time, and b) the Supreme Court has mostly backed down from its most unpopular opinions.