> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to
I'll preface this by saying that I don't agree with how things are working currently. But, the way the existing protections get enforced is by an individual or group of individuals filing lawsuits.
Our regulatory agencies have either been completely gutted by DOGE, or just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement, so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement.
Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design, because bringing suit is an expensive and time consuming process and naturally locks out the people harmed the most by these violations. Its the same method by which slumlords/bad landlords get away with so many blatant violations of the various landlord/tenant laws; their tenants can't afford the lawsuits and the lawyers to protect themselves.
The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like.
> just no longer have an appetite to do any kind of proactive enforcement
The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement.
> Part of me feels like this is intentional and by design
It is absolutely intentional and by design. It aligns with other recent changes in the legal landscape, such as ending the ability for lower federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. This requires more groups to accumulate more funds to pursue more lawsuits in more regions, re-establishing standing, re-establishing harms, re-arguing against the same harmful and illegal acts.
You're allowed to fight back, but only after you've been harmed, and only at great expense and effort, and with the deck stacked against you at every level.
You basically cannot enforce any laws on corporations when Republicans are in control. ~50% of voters decided that they should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce.
Do you really think 50% of voters thought this was what they were getting? I think most of them thought “dunno what is going on, but this guy seems confident and says it’ll be good if we vote for him”.
that's what I voted for and I'm happy about it. same for every single person in my circle.
you may not understand the other side because of biases but if you just say "oh 50% must be crazy / be stupid" then noone can have an honest debate. but I guess gone are those days.
If you're willing to overlook the corruption, the self dealing, the disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law, and the racism, then I agree. There is no useful discourse to be had with you.
> I'd rather someone be rich before office not have their son work on a Ukrainian oil company while their father is VP that handles relations with said country.
You must be incensed over Jared Kushner's diplomatic roles and $2B investments from the Saudis, then?
He formed an investment group after leaving government. Hunter worked for an oil company (no experience) WHILE his father was overseeing the country relations. And the company he worked for was under investigation for corruption. Joe bragged about getting that prosecutor fired.
Meanwhile Jared got the Abraham Accords and is working on other peace deals.
Hunter was a crackhead being paid in diamonds by a corrupt oil company. Not the same is it?
And Trump's corruption is orders of magnitude worse.
Hunter Biden is not in office, is not running for office. I wouldn't support a campaign from him because "whose crotches were involved in your creation" is not a qualifying factor for much of anything besides assigning a last name.
Trump is in office, and is actively, brazenly corrupt. And you're OK with it for...reasons?
He wasn't, but his dad was at the time. That's the point.
My criticism is not of Hunter, but of Joe Biden. The last D president. The most popular D (by votes) in history.
It's worse for people to entirely to benefit purely based on if their dad is in charge. That's nepotism.
However Kushner is in office, he does work on peace deals in the middle east. He has an official title and does work with many countries and many people. It makes sense for him to make connections over there.
It's not unreal to believe he met people in SA and they all wanted to make a business deal on their own. That's individuals making their own decisions at noone's expense. No demands (like firing a prosecutor). Not quid pro quo.
It's unreal to believe Hunter had any knowledge about Ukrainian oil and being paid in diamonds was legit, plus his business partner outed him. And all while his dad was handling relations with that country, and while he bragged about getting the prosecutor fired that was investigating the company. That's quid pro quo. That's nepotism. That's corruption.
> However Kushner is in office, he does work on peace deals in the middle east. He has an official title and does work with many countries and many people.
Actually, that's part of the problem. Jared Kushner did have a formal government job during Trump's first admin. He does not have one in the 2nd term. He's not even a "special government employee" like they made Musk.
He's a "volunteer" who is then given substantial foreign policy influence in a region where he is also a substantial financial player. And it all happens with him having no formal duty to the United States, no particular rules of the road for what's allowed and what's not, because he's (quite intentionally, IMO) existing in a gray area.
Thankyou for responding with your view, and I'm sorry that you got downvoted for it. I don't agree that "[people] should be able to do literally anything they want and Buyer Beware is a good way to structure society and commerce" because I feel that a degree of safety from bad actors is part of the social contract in a healthy society, and that the strong and capable have a duty to protect and support those less able. I understand, however, that not everyone feels that way and that I'm not entitled to tell them what to think. That's why we vote on stuff, and it mostly works.
I still think that a large percentage of MAGA red hat voters (who don't necessarily represent all GOP voters) have bought into the populist rhetoric rather than actively understanding and supporting the actual policy but I'm sure there are plenty of people like you out there who are actively choosing this.
> The overturning of the Chevron doctrine removed the ability of the government to do many kinds of proactive enforcement.
How does stopping agencies from making up their own interpretation of laws do anything to prevent proactive enforcement? (Do you just mean they're now more limited in their ability to make up new laws and proactively enforce those? I'm pretty sure prohibitions on false advertising are actual laws.)
The legislative process (particularly nowadays) moves too slow to react to changes in the real world. The administrative processes provided a gap-fill function that could be somewhat more responsive. That is now lost.
Okay, if that's what you meant then I don't think it's pertinent to this specific situation, since false advertising laws passed by the legislature already exist. They just need to be enforced.
Speaking more generally beyond the context of this specific situation, I agree representative democracy moves slower than other systems of government, but I personally don't think that's sufficient justification for ceding control of the legislative process to an unelected oligarchy. I think the overturning of cheveron was good push back against that trend.
>so its now up to the victims who have been wronged to bring the violation to the attention of the courts/regulatory bodies responsible for enforcement.
lol
Have you tried finding a lawyer recently? For anything?
>The legal system needs to be made much more accessible, but I'm not sure how that happens or what that looks like.
As far as consumer protection goes, the party with greater resources or sophistication (e.g., if you retain counsel against a pro se defendant or plaintiff) should have a higher standard of proof; be forced to follow formal procedural rules, no matter the venue; and bear all costs if they're the ones who brought suit. If you use the court system as an arm of your business, you shouldn't get any leniency in terms of crossing your t's and dotting your i's. I don't know how you get there, but that's the fastest way to level the playing field.
> As far as consumer protection goes, the party with greater resources or sophistication (e.g., if you retain counsel against a pro se defendant or plaintiff) should have a higher standard of proof
No. Holding parties to different standards of evidence is a horrible idea and would do so much harm to a legal system that is already in many cases failing to function the way it was intended.
Determining who has "greater resources or sophistication" is itself a very thorny issue. For example, class action lawyers often look for Average Joes to become lead plaintiffs in highly-targeted lawsuits. These lawsuits are, in at least some if not many cases, designed less to defend the interests of individuals who have been harmed in some way (even theoretically) and more to extract settlements that result in hefty legal fees for themselves.
In these cases, it would be naive to treat the plaintiffs (who I would argue are proxies for the attorneys) as the parties with fewer resources or sophistication.
>Holding parties to different standards of evidence is a horrible idea
We already do that. Plaintiffs can introduce whatever, and as long as it's plausible, defendants have to directly prove it's a falsehood or otherwise inadmissible (not just that it's plausibly so, perhaps circumstantially). Sewer service is a glaring example.
>In these cases, it would be naive to treat the plaintiffs (who I would argue are proxies for the attorneys) as the parties with fewer resources or sophistication.
You're assuming that I disagree. Pro bono/contingent/discounted hours billed would count towards "greater resources or sophistication", and while I'm sure lawyers would love to argue whether or not that's fair, I think you'd find that the Average Joe would say so. And I'd really like to live in a system which has his needs in mind more than that of Dick C. Eshahl, Esq.
> it seems nobody is enforcing consumer protections like they used to.
This is one of the benefits Realtors(tm) and other licensing boards (lawyers etc) like to tout - we have a code of ethics, we self-regulate, you are safer with them than with Joe Agent, blah blah. You see how that goes.
I mean, what’s the problem with taking such stickers off? I’d love if it we had fewer retarded warnings. And I fail to see how they have anything to do with enforcing consumer protections.
The stickers are because somebody got hurt. That's the only reason why they're there. And hopefully it helps somebody. It doesn't hurt anything to have the sticker, lol.
Everything is "okay" with Trump. This social experiment got out of hand long ago. I mean come on, if we (as a society) allowed and okayed pedophilic tendencies, why do we keep looking for the lowest point on the bar? I'm pretty sure, Trump can consume human flesh on live TV and we'd just shrug it off and forget that even happened two weeks later.
