←back to thread

573 points gausswho | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bpodgursky ◴[] No.44505969[source]
From a different article [1]:

> But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said the FTC erred in its rulemaking process by failing to produce a preliminary regulatory analysis, a statutory requirement for rules whose annual effect on the national economy would exceed $100 million.

> The FTC had argued that it was not required to prepare the preliminary analysis because its initial estimate of the rule’s impact on the national economy was under the $100 million threshold — even though ultimately the presiding officer determined the impact exceeded the threshold.

This is a case where congress really did pass a concrete law, and the court is requiring the FTC to follow it. Sucks that a reasonable rule is getting voided for the sloppiness but I really don't think the courts are indefensibly out of line.

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5390731-appeals-court-...

replies(7): >>44506005 #>>44506145 #>>44506160 #>>44506303 #>>44507085 #>>44507173 #>>44508133 #
jordanb ◴[] No.44506005[source]
From googling apparently the "presiding officer" is appointed by the FTC chair. So it sounds like the FTC spiked its own case.
replies(1): >>44506057 #
bpodgursky ◴[] No.44506057[source]
It was Lina Khan. She just felt strongly about going out the way she came in — losing every single case.
replies(2): >>44506797 #>>44509402 #
1. fxtentacle ◴[] No.44506797[source]
Illumina, Tapestry, Kroger, Lockheed Martin would disagree.

Also, didn’t she „build“ the right to repair laws?