• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks

RedAkston

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Moderator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
54,067
Reaction score
39,999
Location
MS Gulf Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
NY judge halts Bloomberg ban on large sugary drinks | Fox News

A state judge on Monday stopped Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration from banning New York City restaurants and other venues from selling large sugary drinks, a major defeat for the mayor who has made public a health initiatives a cornerstone of his tenure at City Hall. The city is "enjoined and permanently restrained from implementing or enforcing the new regulations," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling decided Monday.
The regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," the judge wrote. "The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole....the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule."
Click to expand...

Thank God! Bloomberg's nanny-isms are getting out of control.
 
Who really didn't see this coming from a mile away?
 
The Free market wins. :thumbs:
 
It's sad that the matter had to go to court to be tossed out as ridiculous. What happened to the savvy, independent, strong willed people of New York who at one time would have forced Bloomberg to rescind this nut-case bylaw without going to court? Courts should not be wasting time righting the wrongs of old nannies trying to dictate private behavior. If this man still foolishly harbors any ambition to run for President, hopefully this stunt will forewarn the American people.
 
Damn activist judges, lol.
 
Fisher said:
Who really didn't see this coming from a mile away?
Click to expand...

I really didn't. It's almost unusual now to see a judge NOT be a rubber stamp for certain types of legislation.
 
They should do the same for the NY state gun law that exempts off duty police and private security firms from its nonsense. Once you start seeing exeptions and exemptions it should become obvious that it is not compliant with the 14th amendment requiring equal protection of the law. Far too many statutes are "sometimes" enforced, but only on "bad people". The Davis-Bacon act is the most loony, as it defines "prevailing" wages that apply only to gov't contracts, when any moron can realize that they are not otherwise "prevailing" wages at all, they are simply union scale wages made into public law.
 
yes.gif
A defeat for Bloomberg. Judge layed into him too!
icon_thumright.gif


In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don't include the authority to "limit or ban a legal item under the guise of 'controlling chronic disease.' "

The board may supervise and regulate the city's food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

"That has not been demonstrated," he wrote.

Judge Tingling also suggested that Mr. Bloomberg overstepped his powers by bringing the sugary drink rules before the Board of Health, which is solely appointed by him. The City Council, he wrote, is the legislative body "and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here."


It's also good to know that Bloomberg would overstep his bounds.....especially if he decides to run for the Presidency. ;)
 
I bet the judge is fat and if you look in his chamber's trash there are at least 7 empty 2 litre bottles of coke. :lol:
 
MMC said:
yes.gif
A defeat for Bloomberg. Judge layed into him too!
icon_thumright.gif


In his ruling, Judge Tingling found the Board of Health's mission is to protect New Yorkers by providing regulations that prevent and protect against diseases. Those powers, he argued, don't include the authority to "limit or ban a legal item under the guise of 'controlling chronic disease.' "

The board may supervise and regulate the city's food supply when it affects public health, but the City Charter clearly outlines when such steps may be taken: According to Judge Tingling, the city must face imminent danger due to disease.

"That has not been demonstrated," he wrote.

Judge Tingling also suggested that Mr. Bloomberg overstepped his powers by bringing the sugary drink rules before the Board of Health, which is solely appointed by him. The City Council, he wrote, is the legislative body "and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here."


It's also good to know that Bloomberg would overstep his bounds.....especially if he decides to run for the Presidency. ;)
Click to expand...


So Bloomberg isn't the Lord over NYC after all.
 
joko104 said:
So Bloomberg isn't the Lord over NYC after all.
Click to expand...

Now if we can get him out of other states' elections.....We can send him out to Pasture. Since he likes California so much I was thinking maybe Death Valley!
tumbleweed.gif
 
From my cold, wet, sticky hands!!
 
Betcha when Bloomturd heard the ruling he let out a...

....big gulp.


/Thank you thank you. Tip your waitresses.
 
OK, so New York's Mayor Bloomberg issues an edict that bans large sodas. Today a court struck it down. Bloomberg is appealing. This will probably end up in the Supreme Court. Now, some people might take one side or the other, either believing that the government should help save people's lives, or that the government should just butt out. Meanwhile, millions of dollars will be wasted as this case progresses through the courts.

So, first let me ask you - Should the government exercise a little control, or should the government butt out? That is the question everybody is asking, but it's the wrong question. The right question is asked when people use simple logic, and the question is this:

Assuming that Bloomberg prevails in court, and people are not allowed to buy a large drink, what will people do?

The answer is simple. They will buy 2 small drinks.

Mayor Bloomberg - You are a ****ing idiot.
 
X Factor said:
I really didn't. It's almost unusual now to see a judge NOT be a rubber stamp for certain types of legislation.
Click to expand...

well I think most shops sell the 20 oz retail version of coke and the law is 16 ounces and Coke maketh the moon spin around the earth and the earth about the sun.......
 
Grant said:
Possibly Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

Oh I think he Kneweth it would happen......nothing let's you stand on your soap box like an injunction.
 
A great ruling! Was hoping this would get struck down.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
They should do the same for the NY state gun law that exempts off duty police and private security firms from its nonsense. Once you start seeing exeptions and exemptions it should become obvious that it is not compliant with the 14th amendment requiring equal protection of the law. Far too many statutes are "sometimes" enforced, but only on "bad people". The Davis-Bacon act is the most loony, as it defines "prevailing" wages that apply only to gov't contracts, when any moron can realize that they are not otherwise "prevailing" wages at all, they are simply union scale wages made into public law.
Click to expand...

Yes! especially the $Hollywood$ exemption.
 
Fisher said:
Oh I think he Kneweth it would happen......nothing let's you stand on your soap box like an injunction.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right.

He could pretend he's a man of the people kind of guy by passing such a law while knowing it will eventually be struck down. But even if that were true he read it wrong.

What's happening with salt? Has there been a SALT treaty yet?
 
Thank god for that, people can continue making bad choices and keep getting fatter.
 
Meanwhile, 80% of NYC high school students graduate practically illiterate.....priorities.
 
danarhea said:
OK, so New York's Mayor Bloomberg issues an edict that bans large sodas. Today a court struck it down. Bloomberg is appealing. This will probably end up in the Supreme Court. Now, some people might take one side or the other, either believing that the government should help save people's lives, or that the government should just butt out. Meanwhile, millions of dollars will be wasted as this case progresses through the courts.

So, first let me ask you - Should the government exercise a little control, or should the government butt out? That is the question everybody is asking, but it's the wrong question. The right question is asked when people use simple logic, and the question is this:

Assuming that Bloomberg prevails in court, and people are not allowed to buy a large drink, what will people do?

The answer is simple. They will buy 2 small drinks.

Mayor Bloomberg - You are a ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...

I think that it is an important question. It tells this little dictator wannabe that we aren't North Korea and he can't make regulations like he pleases. That there are laws and judges will smack him down for being ridiculous. He may be head honcho in NYC...but not in the court of another man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom