this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
291 points (99.7% liked)

Today I Learned

18258 readers
483 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The FTC ruled to ban virtually all non-competes nationwide in April 2024.[16] The agency estimates 30 million workers are bound by these clauses and only excludes senior executives from the ban on enforcing non-competes.[16] The agency believes that this will allow workers to find better working conditions and pay, since switching companies, on average, provides the biggest pay raises.[17] It also allows workers to leave abusive work environments and can prevent some doctors from having to leave medicine once they leave a practice.[17] The ban was put on hold by U.S. District Judge Ada Brown on July 3, 2024, but then upheld on appeal by U.S. District Judge Kelley B. Hodge on July 23, 2024.[18][19] On August 20, 2024, a federal court in Texas overturned the FTC's ban on non-compete agreements, which was originally scheduled to take effect on September 4, 2024.[20] U.S. District Judge Ada Brown said the FTC did not have the authority to issue the ban, which she said was "unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation."[21] Victoria Graham, an FTC spokeswoman responded to the ruling by stating "We are seriously considering a potential appeal..."[22]

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Does this mean that the ruling is abolished in your whole country, or just in Texas (since only Texas rejected it)?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

I mean, it does check the power. We all know how long court cases take—especially in higher jurisdictions—and at least this means Trump can't make some stupid unconstitutional executive decision that only gets overturned after 3 years.

[–] [email protected] 84 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Unconstitutional!

That's what all the judges are saying these days about anything they don't like.

[–] normalexit 44 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Clearly neither the constitution nor the Bible mention non-compete agreements, so we don't know how to approach this. /s

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

Is a non-compete agreement with God himself, ergo, non-competes are divine law. ( /s but I could see a judge making that argument )

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

'Before' is the key word there. Apparently, the bible allows to have after. Noncompetes state you can't have after. Ergo, noncompetes are anti-bible, and should be abolished.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

Very compelling argument. I look forward to the supreme Court case.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago

Because it’s ultimately decided by the Supreme Kangaroo Court.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Any small W for the working class gets stalled or reversed by the judiciary.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Conservative judiciary. It's almost always a Texas or Florida judge.

[–] pdxfed 9 points 1 week ago

Yep, just like when Obama passed minimum salary increase, was stayed 4 weeks before go-live the week of Thanksgiving. Eventually rolled back under Trump 1 and watered down.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 6 points 1 week ago

Welcome to......well I was going to say welcome to 2025, but this corrupt shit has been going on for centuries.

Welcome to......earth. I guess.

[–] gibmiser 44 points 1 week ago

I remember being stoked for this win. It's so hard not to be all doom and gloom lately.

[–] Jimmycakes 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

We need to get rid of judges. They have too much power and not enough brains.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 24 points 1 week ago

Oh they have brains. Their brains are saying "take the payout, take the payout, ethics are for poor people."

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Elected judges without any vetting or prerequisites are a terrible mistake.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean district judge appointments are subject to the advice and consent of the senate

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

One of if not the principal functions of the 3-power division is so that each keep the others in check. Judiciary power makes sure Legislative and Executive don’t stray, and so on and so forth.

When your judiciary is beholden to the other powers, this breaks. Corruption festers.

Judiciary power can’t properly be elected by the public because It’sa technical function. It can’t be appointed by the other powers because it would corrupt it. The judiciary should be elected from within. There’s a bar exam to qualify someone to practice law. It should also be used to qualify then to vote on other barred individuals to positions within the system. Judges, DAs, district judges, Justices… the lot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Isn't that just checking the power? If there's no way for a power to check another power, that's absolute chaos. And confirmation by the senate doesn't mean the judge will listen to the senate's every single bidding. The only thing that makes judges "beholden" to the legislature is impeachment, and that's pretty hard. You may as well say the executive is beholden to the legislature. And it's not like the US ever had direct presidential elections.

Judges' lifetime appointment system on good behavior is meant to prevent them from being chosen by electioneering while still reflecting the opinions of the populace through being selected for nomination by the president. Though under Trump, they're pretty much selected through internal election under the Federalist Society anyways.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Pretty sure this one was appointed, but yeah

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

That’s worse. 😨

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dammit I would like the ninth circuit to rule the fifth circuit unconstitutional and then have a cage match in the DC circuit to figure out for the last time who the goof circuit really is

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

the district court did this tho