- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
In a report, the regulator sharply criticized pharmacy benefit managers, a reversal from its longstanding hands-off approach to policing the companies.
In a report, the regulator sharply criticized pharmacy benefit managers, a reversal from its longstanding hands-off approach to policing the companies.
Don’t worry, I was told here on Lemmy after SCOTUS struck down Chevron that putting these sort of things in the hands of the judiciary was a good idea.
I’m curious if the people who insisted that felt the same way after SCOTUS also said that the president can commit crimes?
Imagine thinking that the very same people that don’t even need to be qualified as a judge could be qualified to handle any question that involves specific expertise…
Of course those idiots didn’t get it, but that decision was 110% a gift to the ownership class… Yet again… This fucking rubber stamp scotus gives Republicans even more power as is intended…
I suppose if we had way more judges who worked on a much quicker timeline and retained independent qualified experts in all these areas, and the judges weren’t just partisan hacks, then Chevron being struck down might not be so bad. But that’s not the world we live in. Slow decisions by corrupt judges that don’t know anything about what they’re ruling on. Just look at some of the ridiculous fda related rulings trying to go after abortion.
But that’s basically why at the time it was originally ruled on you had liberals upset about Chevron and conservatives happy (basically a more conservative executive and more liberal court at that time).
One slight silver lining is that it may make it easier for judges to strike down Trump admin regulations if he wins the election. But that is kind of cold comfort. Probably have worse issues than that if Trump is re elected.