←back to thread

574 points gausswho | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.026s | 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 #
rayiner ◴[] No.44509759[source]
Courts don’t make decisions on whether executive rules are told or bad, serve consumers or not. The main oversight they have is ensuring compliance with procedural rules and statutory technicalities.
replies(5): >>44509943 #>>44510184 #>>44510324 #>>44510810 #>>44511864 #
miltonlost[dead post] ◴[] No.44509943[source]
[flagged]
rayiner ◴[] No.44510046[source]
The non-Federalist Society folks think that “emanations from penumbras” is constitutional law. How can right wing judges even compete with that?

I think we may have drastically different understandings of what “the law” is.

replies(4): >>44510180 #>>44510281 #>>44510387 #>>44510399 #
martythemaniak ◴[] No.44510399[source]
Yeah, those crazy woke judges that think that the government should not be able to bust into your bedroom and arrest you because you used a condom.
replies(2): >>44510429 #>>44510453 #
rayiner ◴[] No.44510429[source]
“The law” as most people understand it allows the government to regulate the sale and use of medical products. There’s a libertarian reading of the constitution under which Griswold makes sense. But under it, the FDA is probably unconstitutional.
replies(1): >>44514284 #
1. CWuestefeld ◴[] No.44514284{3}[source]
Thanks for saying more concisely what I was trying to convey here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44514202
replies(1): >>44515826 #
2. rayiner ◴[] No.44515826[source]
I thought that comment was an excellent summary.