Judge Halts Bloomberg's Sugar Drink Ban, Calls It Illegal, Arbitrary And Capricious


#1

Judge Halts Bloomberg’s Sugar Drink Ban, Calls It Illegal, Arbitrary And Capricious | Zero Hedge


#2

About time someone stood up to him!


#3

There’s an Alderman here trying to get energy drinks banned.


#4

Atta boy judge. I especially like the reasoning. Basically, look through the legal jargon, he said this idea was “insane”


#5

The courts finally do something good!


#6

A win for sanity.


#7

[quote=“OldStyleBlues, post:3, topic:38631”]
There’s an Alderman here trying to get energy drinks banned.
[/quote]Y’all got it coming, just like NY did, just like we all do really but maybe not quite as much. Quit voting for authoritarians.


#8

Judge Cans Soda Ban
By MICHAEL HOWARD SAUL
Online.WSJ.com
Updated March 11, 2013, 10:33 p.m. ET

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was dealt a stinging blow on Monday when a state Supreme Court Judge quashed his plan to ban the sale of large sugary drinks in the city’s restaurants and other venues.

At a late afternoon news conference, Mr. Bloomberg and the city’s top lawyer, Michael Cardozo, said they believed the judge erred in his ruling and vowed to appeal. The decision was both lauded and criticized by city officials and others.

Judge Tingling determined that Mr. Bloomberg exceeded his authority by sidestepping the City Council and placing the issue before the city’s Board of Health, a panel whose members were each appointed by the mayor.

Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, said she believes there is no legal difference between the trans-fat ban and the sugary beverage serving size restriction.

“The judge got it wrong,” she said. “The authority of the department of health is the exact same authority [in both cases]. It doesn’t make sense to me that the trans-fat ban is legal, and they struck this down.”

While the Board of Health did approve the trans-fat ban, the City Council later voted 47-1 to incorporate the ban into the administrative code, providing express legislative approval of the board’s actions.

I wish I could rejoice that this decision was a principled blow to elitist excess, but it looks more like a, “You crossed your T’s before you dotted your I’s,” decision. OTOH, should this ruling stand, it at least would force further nannyism to go through a City Council whose members have to listen to and “face” the voters. Not huge consolation in that, though.

Free the Big Gulp!


#9

Bloomberg is appealing and he will win. New York is a model of the nanny state Obama wants to emulate. Wait and see.


#10

I just attended the movies on Saturday, armed and with a CCW permit, and had a 32 ounces Barq’s root beer all in honor of the radical communist Mayor Bloomberg. Every element of freedom, even on a small scale, is to be treasured.


#11

You forgot salt and a twinkie lol


#12

We’re currently in the midst of a unions-caused nationwide Twinkie shortage, tp.


#13

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:12, topic:38631”]
We’re currently in the midst of a unions-caused nationwide Twinkie shortage, tp.
[/quote] You’re wrong Pete, Their management ran that company into the ground. Hostess has been sold at least three times since the 1980s, racking up debt and shedding profitable assets along the way with each successive merger. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2004, and again in 2011, As if all this weren’t enough, management gave themselves several raises, all the while complaining that the workers who actually produced the products that made the firm what money it did earn were grossly overpaid relative to the company’s increasingly dismal financial position. Sales had been miserable since around 1999. They kept trying to sell the same products, using roughly the same business model, long after the products had become irrelevant. Once Management realized this they bled the company dry. After the first bankruptcy the Workers took cuts to wages and benefits while the CEO’S pay tripled and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent. This is akin to management saying to those who sell wheat they expect to buy flour at 2/3 the market price or to petroleum companies they expect to buy gasoline for $2.25/gallon. Labor, like other suppliers, has a “market rate.” That management was unable to run a company which could pay the market rate for its labor is not the fault of the union.


#14

#15

While executive salaries are always an emotive issue for union folk, in the case of Hostess and its management at the time of its 2012 bankruptcy, it was a red herring. Fist, as you point our, 2012 was the company’third venture into bankruptcy. Three owners, multiple management teams. Either there are no competent managers available, or there was something structurally wrong with Hostess. Second, Hostess debt, when they filed for bankruptcy a little over a year ago, was nearly a billion dollars. Executive salaries may or may not have been appropriate, but wer irrelevant to whether Hostess was viable.

The unions chose to refuse to make concessions, knowing it could drive Hostess into bankruptcy, and saying they basically did not care because Hostess would go under anyway. Whatever the truth of that contention, the unions chose to kill Hostess.


#16

I was going for symbolism


#17

You always were a symbolic sort. :grin:


#18

[quote=“PeteS_in_CA, post:15, topic:38631”]
While executive salaries are always an emotive issue for union folk, in the case of Hostess and its management at the time of its 2012 bankruptcy, it was a red herring. Fist, as you point our, 2012 was the company’third venture into bankruptcy. Three owners, multiple management teams. Either there are no competent managers available, or there was something structurally wrong with Hostess. Second, Hostess debt, when they filed for bankruptcy a little over a year ago, was nearly a billion dollars. Executive salaries may or may not have been appropriate, but wer irrelevant to whether Hostess was viable.

The unions chose to refuse to make concessions, knowing it could drive Hostess into bankruptcy, and saying they basically did not care because Hostess would go under anyway. Whatever the truth of that contention, the unions chose to kill Hostess.
[/quote] Huh? The Union agreed and gave up over $220 million in concessions after the first bankruptcy. Guess where the money went? It wasn’t reinvested back into the company. It right in the executive’s pockets. As a business model their days were numbered and management saw that coming and bled out the company.


#19

Well, I did have Milk Duds, Twizlers, and sour Lifesaver gummies in my pocket and Mrs. RW’s purse.