←back to thread

586 points gausswho | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.847s | source | bottom
Show context
ApolloFortyNine ◴[] No.44511593[source]
From the article

>"While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission's rulemaking process are fatal here,"

As with a lot of judge rulings, and what they're always supposed to do, they ruled on what the actual law is and not just on what sounds good.

>The FTC is required to conduct a preliminary regulatory analysis when a rule has an estimated annual economic effect of $100 million or more. The FTC estimated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the rule would not have a $100 million effect.

Basically the judges, and a lower court, all agreed that there's no way this rule won't have at last a $100 million in impact, and when something has that much impact there are rules they were meant to follow and didn't. And they rightly commented that if this was allowed to stand, the FTC and every government agency would just always estimate low in these cases.

replies(11): >>44512527 #>>44512776 #>>44512973 #>>44513248 #>>44513526 #>>44514097 #>>44514150 #>>44514382 #>>44514507 #>>44514812 #>>44515256 #
1. marricks ◴[] No.44512527[source]
It’s a pro business anti consumer supreme court which knows it’d be dangerous to appear that way. Government and court will hamstring their ability to help consumers.

My favorite comment on HN was some law student saying his prof said “Scalia is the most complicated supreme court member whose views are always unpredictable” and the commenter said “he’s just a corporate hack who always votes for corporations and backs it up” and sure enough he guessed every ruling correctly.

replies(2): >>44512665 #>>44512672 #
2. pinkmuffinere ◴[] No.44512665[source]
> they rightly commented that if this was allowed to stand, the FTC and every government agency would just always estimate low in these cases.

I think you missed this — it isn’t some arbitrary reason to rule in an anti-consumer way. There is good reason to do so. Imo we should keep our checks and balances strong, and this is one small action that does that.

replies(4): >>44512762 #>>44514061 #>>44514431 #>>44528538 #
3. skeeter2020 ◴[] No.44512672[source]
>> It’s a pro business anti consumer supreme court

Maybe? But this wasn't the supreme court: "...was vacated by the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit."

replies(1): >>44516114 #
4. antonvs ◴[] No.44512762[source]
> Imo we should keep our checks and balances strong

I think the tense of this sentence is not quite right. Something more like "Make checks and balances strong again" would work.

replies(1): >>44512855 #
5. pinkmuffinere ◴[] No.44512855{3}[source]
Haha, ya I agree with that too
6. bagels ◴[] No.44514061[source]
There are always reasons on both sides of a case
7. mring33621 ◴[] No.44514431[source]
so, small questionable wins for normal people would break the system while big, veeeeerrrrry questionable wins for some subset of the elite are OK?
8. js2 ◴[] No.44516114[source]
The 8th Circuit has an even more conservative composition than SCOTUS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals...

Case was decided by Loken (GHW Bush), Erickson (Trump), and Kobes (Trump).

replies(1): >>44516744 #
9. Yeul ◴[] No.44516744{3}[source]
In my country politicians do not appoint judges. The separation of the branches of power and all that...

But I will say that having independent justices who constantly fuck up your government plans can be exhausting.

10. AlexCornila ◴[] No.44528538[source]
sure bud .. wake the fck up