←back to thread

586 points gausswho | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.491s | source
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 #
Buttons840 ◴[] No.44513526[source]
While the courts, supposedly, focus on what the law actually says, remember that Wickard v Filburn (1942) established that growing a plant on your own property for your own personal use is "interstate commerce".

I don't know a lot about law, but I at least know that ruling on what the "actual law is" is selective, and usually selective in a way that is beneficial for the rich and powerful.

replies(5): >>44513803 #>>44514044 #>>44514579 #>>44514617 #>>44515411 #
margalabargala ◴[] No.44514044[source]
So we have some cases where the courts follow the rule of law, and others where the stretch reality to come to insane but convenient conclusions, like in your example.

You're right, it's absolutely applied selectively. But, while it would be nice to have an insane, illegal, but convenient conclusion in our favor, that does not mean we should criticize the courts for following the rule of law rather than coming to an insane, illegal conclusion.

replies(3): >>44514315 #>>44514712 #>>44524189 #
BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.44524189[source]
It sort of does mean that. If the courts selectively rule in favor of one class, and we can’t do anything about it, then the best thing to do may absolutely be to encourage selective rulings against them.
replies(1): >>44524633 #
1. margalabargala ◴[] No.44524633[source]
I see why you say that, but I prefer the long term results of fighting against insane rulings when they're bad, rather than the long term effects of fighting for insane rulings on the occasions that I find them convenient.
replies(1): >>44527517 #
2. BriggyDwiggs42 ◴[] No.44527517[source]
I don’t think we can successfully fight insane rulings in the near future. It’s on the same order as getting money out of politics; disagrees completely with the current incentives of the system and would require a massive political push. It seems to me that the system is working as intended in allowing insane rulings, and that we should attempt to use that to our advantage, since the powerful absolutely will continue to do so and there’s basically jack shit we can do about it right now.