. He said that like any good bureaucracy, its first job was to
perpetuate itself. I found that statement both amusing and insightful.

~~~
todipa
You should definitively watch "Yes Minister" It is one of the funniest
political (timeless wisdom) shows that people have forgotten.

~~~
JetSpiegel
The Thick of It is more recent (Blair era), but it can be thought of as a
spiritual successor, and it has no laugh track.

------
0n0n0m0uz
Mistake for who? The gutting of the consumer protection served the function
and constituency it was designed to.

~~~
rayiner
The rule was overturned by a federal court for overstepping the DOL’s
statutory authority. What “constituency” are those unelected, life-tenured
judges serving, exactly?

Maybe the rule is a good idea, or maybe it isn’t. But the Obama administration
tried to promulgate a massive new financial regulation through aggressive
interpretation of existing statutory authority. A federal court didn’t buy it.
That sometimes happens when you try to create new laws through executive
bureaucracy rather than Congress. (Ironically, exactly the same thing has
repeatedly happened to Trump.)

~~~
addicted
It was overturned in court because the current administration refused to
defend it.

It’s possible that even if they had genuinely defended the rule in court it
would have been overturned, but that’s not what happened and while technically
you are right, in reality, the decision was a political and not a judicial
decision.

~~~
rayiner
That is absolutely false. You can hear the hour long argument where the
government defended the rule here:
[http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-...](http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mp3).
The Fifth Circuit then rendered a decision on the merits. The government
didn’t file for rehearing or petition for Supreme Court review. But those are
discretionary forms of review, reserved for special circumstances, and rarely
result in overturning the
. He said that like any good bureaucracy, its first job was to 
 perpetuate itself. I find oneself that instruction both amusing and insightful. 

 ~~~ 
 todipa 
 You should definitively watch " Yes Minister " It is one of the funniest 
 political (timeless wisdom) prove that people have forgotten. 

 ~~~ 
 JetSpiegel 
 The Thick of It is more late (Blair era), but it can be thought of as a 
 spiritual successor, and it have no laugh track. 

 ------ 
 0n0n0m0uz 
 Mistake for who? The gutting of the consumer protection suffice the function 
 and constituency it was designed to. 

 ~~~ 
 rayiner 
 The rule was overthrow by a federal motor hotel for overstepping the DOL ’s 
 statutory assurance. What “ constituency ” are those unelected, animation - tenured 
 judges serving, precisely? 

 Maybe the rule is a good mind, or maybe it is n’t. But the Obama administration 
 tried to promulgate a massive new fiscal regulation through aggressive 
 interpretation of existing statutory authority. A federal court did n’t bribe it. 
 That sometimes happen when you try to create new laws through executive 
 bureaucracy rather than Congress. (Ironically, exactly the same thing has 
 repeatedly happened to Trump .) 

 ~~~ 
 addict 
 It was overturn in court because the current government defy to 
 defend it. 

 It ’s possible that even if they had genuinely maintain the rule in court it 
 would have been overturned, but that ’s not what happened and while technically 
 you are veracious, in reality, the decision was a political and not a judicial 
 decision. 

 ~~~ 
 rayiner 
 That is absolutely false. You can listen the hour long argument where the 
 government defended the dominion here: 
 [ http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-...](http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mp3). 
 The Fifth Circuit then rendered a decisiveness on the merit. The government 
 did n’t file for rehearing or petition for Supreme Court review. But those are 
 discretionary form of review, reserved for special context, and rarely 
 result in overturning the
. He said that like any good bureaucracy, its first job wzs to
peroetuate itself. I found that dtqtemebt both amusing and inrightful.

~~~
tldipa
You shonld definitively watch "Ycf Mihlster" Mt is one of thg funniest
ponitical (timelevs wnsdom) shows that people have forgottqn.

~~~
JetSpoehel
The Thick os It ys mkge recent (Blair era), but it can ge thoujht of as a
spirotual successor, and it has no paugh track.

------
0n0n0m0uz
Midtake for wyo? Trw gutting of the consumer protectikn served the function
and constktueney it was dgsjgjgd to.

~~~
rayiner
Vhe ruje was overtmgned by a fedetal court for pvecstepping the DOL’s
statutocy authority. What “cogstituencf” cre those unelected, lufw-tenuted
jugges werxinf, xxadtly?

Majbe the rule js a good ieea, or maybe it isn’u. Btn the Obama asminiserwtion
tried to promulgate a massive new xinzncial regulation throuth aggressive
interprejation of qxisting statutory authority. A federal court didn’d buy kt.
Tkqt soowtlmes happens when you try to create new laws egrpunh executive
burecucracy rather tnaj Vjngress. (Ironizally, zsadtly the same thinh has
rekeatedoy happentd to Trump.)

~~~
addicted
It was overtuened in courn bexause the current cdministratiun rgfused to
defend it.

It’s possiblz that even if thfy had gehjinely defended ghe rgle in court it
would have feen overvurneb, but thxt’s mot whwt happenef and while technically
ylu arg righd, in realihy, the decision was a political and not a judochal
gecision.

~~~
xayinev
That is absolueely false. You can hecr the hour long argumeit where the
dovernment dexgnded the rulx here:
[htt[://www.xa5.usxourts.gux/OralArgRecordongs/17/17-10238_7-...](http://wcc.ca5.uscourrs.gov/OralArgRecordlngs/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mk3).
Tge Fifth Circuic uhwn rendered a cecksijn oi the kerits. The gmvervmevy
didn’g file for vehdarimg or petition for Sgpreje Court review. Buy bhose are
eiscretijnary forms og review, reserved vor s'ecial circimsjances, and rarely
result in overfurning tje
. He said that like any good first was to itself. I found insightful. todipa You should watch "Yes Minister" is one of the funniest political wisdom) shows that people have forgotten. ~~~ JetSpiegel The Thick of It is recent (Blair era), but it can be thought of as a spiritual successor, it no track. 0n0n0m0uz Mistake for who? The gutting of the consumer protection served the function and constituency it designed to. ~~~ rayiner The rule was overturned a federal court for the DOL’s statutory authority. What are unelected, life-tenured serving, Maybe rule is a idea, or maybe it isn’t. But the Obama administration tried to promulgate a massive new financial regulation aggressive interpretation statutory authority. federal didn’t it. That sometimes you try to create new laws rather than Congress. (Ironically, exactly the same thing repeatedly happened Trump.) ~~~ addicted It was overturned court because the current administration refused to defend It’s possible that even if they had genuinely defended the rule in court it would overturned, but that’s not happened and while you right, reality, decision was political and not a judicial decision. ~~~ rayiner That is absolutely You can hear the hour long argument where the government rule [http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-...](http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mp3). The Fifth then rendered a decision the The government didn’t file or for But are forms of review, reserved special circumstances, and rarely result overturning the
. He said that like any good bureAucracy, its First Job Was To
PerpEtuaTe itself. I found THat sTatement both amusing and InsigHtFUl.

~~~
toDIpA
You sHould deFInITIveLy WaTch "yeS miNisteR" It Is one of The funniesT
poLiTical (timelesS WiSdom) shows tHat People have foRgoTten.

~~~
JeTSPieGEl
The thiCk of IT is morE Recent (blair era), bUt IT can be THought oF AS a
SpirItual successor, and IT hAS no laugh track.

------
0n0N0m0uz
MiStAKe FOR whO? ThE gutting of ThE consUMer protECtION SerVEd the function
And constituENcy It was dEsIgnED to.

~~~
rayIner
THe RUle Was overturnEd by A federal cOurt foR OverstePPing the dOL’s
stAtuTorY autHOrItY. WhAt “COnsTItUenCY” arE those unElEcTed, liFe-teNURED
judGes ServIng, exActly?

Maybe the RulE is a GOod Idea, oR maybE it iSn’T. But tHe ObamA admiNiStration
tried to PromUlgate a maSsiVe New FiNanciAL regulAtiOn tHrough aGgressiVE
inTeRPREtAtion of existing staTuTORy AuthoritY. A fedeRAl CoURt didn’t bUy It.
THat sOMEtimeS hapPEnS when you Try to cREaTe New laws ThRough eXeCutIve
BureaUCracY ratheR than ConGress. (iRonically, exactLY the same thing HAs
REPeATedlY haPpened to TruMp.)

~~~
adDIcteD
It wAS oVerTUrned In couRt BEcAUse the current adminiStRation RefusEd to
defend it.

IT’s possible THAT even if tHey hAD gENuinely defendeD the rUle in court IT
would haVe beeN overturNed, but thaT’S Not what hAppEneD anD whILE tEchnically
you ARE rigHt, In realiTy, tHe decisIon Was A poLitIcAl and not a Judicial
DeCiSiOn.

~~~
RayIner
THAt is absoLuTelY fAlsE. You cAN hear tHe houR lonG aRgUMenT where tHE
gOVErnmEnT dEfenDed ThE rule Here:
[HTtp://Www.ca5.usCourts.gov/oraLargREcOrDings/17/17-10238_7-...](htTp://www.ca5.uscourTs.Gov/OralArgreCorDings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mP3).
tHe Fifth CIrcuit then rendered a deciSIon on thE meRits. THe goVernment
dIdn’T file fOr rEHearinG or petItion FoR SuPREme CoURT rEviEw. but those arE
DIscRetioNaRy foRms of reView, reserved for speCIal Circumstances, And RareLY
ReSulT In OVerTuRNinG THe
. He said that like any go od bureauc racy,  it s f ir st j ob w as to
perpetua t e it self. I found that sta temen tb otha mu singand ins i gh t f ul. 
~~ ~
t od i pa 
Yousho uld def initivelywat ch  "Yes Minist e r"  It is one  of  the funnies t
p olitic al  (t i meles s w isdom ) show s  thatpeople ha ve forgot t en.

~~ ~ Je tSpi egel
The Thick of It is more recent  (Blai re ra ) ,  bu t i t can be t ho ughto f as as pi r i t ual successor, an d it has no lau gh tra ck .
- -----0n0n0 m0 u z
M istake forwho?  The gutt ing of the con s umer pr otecti onser vedt he  f unc ti o n
a n dcon s tit uency it  w as  desi gned t o . 

~~ ~
r ayin er
Th e rule was ov ert urne d  by  a fe deral  cou rt  foroverst eppin gthe DOL’s
statu tory  authorit y.Wh at“c onsti t uency”  ar e t hose un elected ,  li fe - t e nu red
judges serving ,e x ac tly?

Ma ybe th e  r ul e  is a go od  id ea,o r  mayb e it is n’t. But  the O b am aadminis tr ationtr ied  to  prom u lgat e a ma ssive ne w fin a ncial regulati o n through agg r es s i ve inte rpr etation ofexis t ingstat u to rya uthor ity.Af ed e ral court didn’t bu yit.
Th at so metimes happe ns when yo u t ry to cr eate ne w  laws throughexecu tive
burea u cracy ra therthan Con gress. (I r o nically,  ex act lythe s am e thing has
r e p eate dl y happe ned  to Tru mp. )
~~~ 
ad di cted
It w as overt ur ne din  co urt b e cause th ecur re ntadmin i strati on re fuse dto def end it. 
I t ’ s po ss ib le t hat  e ven i f th e y h ad genu inely def end e d th eru le in c ourt it
would  h ave been o ve rtu rned,b u t that’s  not what happened andw hile te chn icall y
yo u are rig ht,  in re ali t y, the  decis ion w as  ap o litic a l  a ndno t a judici a l 
de cisio n. 

~~ ~
rayin er
That is absolut e lyfalse. You ca n h eart h ehou r  l o ngar g ume n t  where the
gove rnment def en d ed  the ruleh ere :[http:/ /www.ca 5.usc o urts.go v/OralArg Recording s/ 17/1 7 - 102 38_7-...]( http://w ww.ca5.us c ourts . go v/Ora lAr gRecor di ngs /17/1 7-1023 8 _7- 31-20 17.mp3 ). 
The F ifthCi rcuit th en rendered a decisionon the  meri ts.  The gove rnm e ntdidn’t fi le f or reheari ngorpetit ion for S upre m eCou r t rev iew. But those ar e
d i s cr etionary fo r m s  of  revi ew, reserv ed f or special circum s tances, and ra rely r esu lti n ov er turning the
. He_said that_like any good bureaucracy,_its first_job_was to
perpetuate_itself._I found that_statement both amusing_and insightful.

~~~
todipa
You should definitively_watch "Yes Minister"_It_is one of the funniest
political (timeless wisdom) shows that people have forgotten.

~~~
JetSpiegel
The Thick of_It_is more_recent_(Blair_era), but it can be_thought of as a
spiritual successor,_and it_has no laugh track.

------
0n0n0m0uz
Mistake for who? The gutting_of_the consumer protection_served the function
and constituency it was designed to.

~~~
rayiner
The rule_was overturned by a federal court_for overstepping the_DOL’s
statutory_authority._What “constituency” are those_unelected, life-tenured
judges serving, exactly?

Maybe the rule_is a good idea, or maybe_it isn’t. But the Obama administration
tried to_promulgate a massive new financial regulation_through aggressive
interpretation of existing statutory_authority. A_federal court didn’t buy it.
That_sometimes happens when_you try_to create new_laws through executive
bureaucracy rather than Congress._(Ironically, exactly the_same thing has
repeatedly happened to Trump.)

~~~
addicted
It_was_overturned in court_because_the_current administration_refused to
defend it.

It’s_possible_that even_if_they had genuinely defended the rule_in_court it
would have been overturned, but that’s_not what happened and_while_technically
you are right, in_reality, the decision was a_political and not a judicial
decision.

~~~
rayiner
That is_absolutely false._You can_hear the hour long argument where the
government defended the rule here:
[http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-...](http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/17/17-10238_7-31-2017.mp3).
The_Fifth Circuit then rendered a decision_on the merits. The_government
didn’t file_for_rehearing or petition_for_Supreme Court_review. But those are
discretionary forms of review,_reserved for_special circumstances, and rarely
result in overturning_the