←back to thread

575 points gausswho | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.842s | source
Show context
John23832 ◴[] No.44509670[source]
What consumer does this serve at all? What citizen does this serve at all?

This only serves to allow firms to erect effort barriers to keep rent seeking fro their customers. The "gotcha" that the Khan FTC didn't "follow the rules making process" is parallel construction.

replies(10): >>44509742 #>>44509759 #>>44510095 #>>44510337 #>>44510719 #>>44510834 #>>44511178 #>>44511684 #>>44511936 #>>44516884 #
caesil ◴[] No.44510834[source]
If you actually bother to click through and read the article, you'd find the court expressed sympathies with the intent of the rule, but the FTC "is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more", and they did not do that.

The blame here belongs to the FTC for its rushed and sloppy process that put the rule on shaky ground legally.

replies(11): >>44510991 #>>44511010 #>>44511221 #>>44511297 #>>44511415 #>>44512154 #>>44512286 #>>44512289 #>>44514076 #>>44514547 #>>44518196 #
rtkwe ◴[] No.44511415[source]
Depends on how accurate you think the >$100 million estimated impact from the lower court is. When the FTC did the analysis they came up with a lower impact so they didn't have to do it. I'd be more willing to believe they got it right than a single judge did.
replies(4): >>44511710 #>>44512060 #>>44512807 #>>44512880 #
zaphar ◴[] No.44511710[source]
Why do you think the FTC analysis was more accurate than the opposing sides? The judges, of whom there were multiple, were going off of opposing side argumentation not just their own subjective opinion. That's how courts in the US work.
replies(2): >>44511952 #>>44512420 #
BolexNOLA[dead post] ◴[] No.44511952[source]
[flagged]
zaphar ◴[] No.44512040[source]
Can you point to specific examples where the courts interpretation and reasoning wasn't rooted in the law and the arguments from the lawyers in the court specificall? Because I can't. I might disagree with some of the opinions but I can't point to anything where they were clearly not basing it on the law and the various lawyer's argumentation.
replies(1): >>44512061 #
BolexNOLA ◴[] No.44512061[source]
That request is a trap and can’t be satisfied. Any answer can be hand waved away with ease. It’s vague yet restrictive.
replies(1): >>44512163 #
zaphar ◴[] No.44512163[source]
If that request is a trap then you have basically made my point for me I guess.
replies(1): >>44512261 #
BolexNOLA ◴[] No.44512261[source]
If you believe the judges are all being as objective as possible and that the systemic flaws in our judicial system are not being exploited by the Trump admin/lawyers representing the Trump admin without pushback from said judges than you can’t be convinced by me. I can cite an example, and if you aren’t personally convinced you can simply say “the court of law said x was innocent or y was held liable” or whatever you consider the correct arbiter.

You can appeal to the system that I am actively saying is not working but you get the benefit of “well the law/eatablishment says so.” You can lean on your opinion or the results, whichever serves you better, in a way I can’t as you cite the case itself. The entire discussion is poisoned out the gate.

replies(1): >>44512399 #
1. zaphar ◴[] No.44512399[source]
Is your entire position that government doesn't work so we should get rid of it? Or do you have proposals for actual ways to improve it?
replies(1): >>44514251 #
2. BolexNOLA ◴[] No.44514251[source]
No, that is not my position. I don’t know where you got that from. My position is advocating for healthy, much-deserved skepticism of the current judicial system. More specifically, I am saying that an appeal to some alleged neutrality/objectivity judges are supposed to maintain when carrying out their duty is particularly flimsy in 2025.
replies(1): >>44515976 #
3. zaphar ◴[] No.44515976[source]
I don't know how you advocate for such a thing without holding judges to a standard of neutrality and objectivity and acknowledging/celebrating it when it happens.
replies(1): >>44520733 #
4. BolexNOLA ◴[] No.44520733{3}[source]
I don’t understand what you’re saying anymore. It sounds like you’re agreeing with me? If we have to celebrate when it happens, then that means it’s not a standard expectation. It’s special and worthy of celebration.