Skip to comments.JUDGE BLOCKS BLOOMBERG'S SODA BAN — Calls It 'Arbitrary And Capricious'
Posted on 03/11/2013 1:38:49 PM PDT by blam
JUDGE BLOCKS BLOOMBERG'S SODA BAN Calls It 'Arbitrary And Capricious'
A judge has invalidated New York City's ban on large sodas, which was supposed to go into effect tomorrow, saying that the limits on sugary drinks are invalid, according to CNBC.
The New York City Mayor's Office said it would appeal the decision "as soon as possible" in a tweet shortly after the ruling came down.
Bloomberg's new sugary drink regulations, which were supposed to go in effect Tuesday, are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling wrote.
"It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City," the judge wrote. "It excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds."
"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," he continued. "The loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the rule."
The ruling "provides a sigh of relief to New Yorkers and thousands of small businesses in New York City that would have been harmed by this arbitrary and unpopular ban," a spokesperson for the American Beverage Association told the WSJ.
Earlier today, Bloomberg predicted that his new regulations would be accepted by most, according to the New York Post.
"I think you're not going to see a lot of push back here," he said.
We reached out to the Mayor's Office, which declined to comment. But it did tweet out a note:
More to come...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The judge doesn’t seem to understand that a law that isn’t arbitrary and capricious doesn’t grant the tyrant implementing that law the power he deserves.
Ha ha ha ha
Well Shorty, what are you gonna do NOW? /s;)
NY’ers elected this a-hole. Let them suffer under his rule. The court should let him go wild.
Bloomie just didn’t want people walking around with a cup taller than he was.
that Judge will have his ba!!s cut off by Bloomy...
He does not like people that try to stop his CONTROL...
THE GUY IS AS EVIL AS BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA...
The Department of Portion Control has been dealt a serious setback. The number of New Yorkers who count on the government to tell them what is best for themselves are in a terrible quandary.
Bingo. Judge is right, but for the wrong reason.
How is this different from their 7 round mag limit? Or others’ 10 or whatever? All tyranny based on control only.
I think Bloomberg was raised by mother who won’t let him have fun and now he is reacting like one of Jewish Mother who said OH You get hurt that I gather
I would much tolerate our elected leaders taking our large sugary drinks away from us that tolerate a court saying that it is beyond the reach of a democratically elected official.
Hallelujah, LORD!! Bloomberg is revealed for what he is...arbitrary and capricious. When dd the government assume the power to RULE over the people and tell them what light bulbs they could use, how much water they could flush in their loos, HOW MANY BULLETS they could put in their magazines? Government is WAY out of control and needs to be put back in its’ place. You first, Bloomberg, you half-pint tyrant. Now who’s next? King Andrew.
LMAO, about damn time someone knock bloomberg down.
And you might have a point if this rule was a law passed by the city council.
But it wasn’t. It was an appointed board grabbing power to regulate outside of their area.
Bloomie, it seems, has met his match.
Ya just don’t screw with PepsiCo...
a voice of sanity...
Every so often an official in government thinks clearly.
Ah. Ha ha ha haha ha ha ha!
Look at that moron! I bet he took a Big Gulp when the judge told him off!
I still think thousands of people should send either empty large size soda cups; or liters of soda to Bloomie.
I don’t know which is worse, the totalitarian thinking of Bloomberg, or the totalitarian thinking of the judge who condemns it because it might be inconsistently applied in a city block....
If I wasn't so afraid of Riker's Island I'd make sure to toss some empties on the grounds of City Hall during my upcoming visits.But somehow I don't think that a pasty,old white guy like myself would do well at Riker's...even for 15 minutes.For that matter,given that it would be New York City Hall,a juicy terrorist target that already has lots of security,I wouldn't be surprised if Attorney Corporal Holder might get involved.
Can one imagine being married to this insufferable man. If he is married, I truly feel sorry for his wife.
I think this time, this judge handed Bloomy his rear-end. :)
I just watched the emperor’s press conference and I must say I haven’t had such a good time since before election day!
So, NYC just wasted a lot of $$$ on those 17-oz tester cups.
Nice going Bloomberg. No wonder your city is in financial trouble.
American stupidity.... here’s one common sense judge. But Mikey Bloomberg is not going to be deterred from telling his subjects on how to take care of their health.
Too bad New Yorkers cannot vote to ban what politicians can wear. Better yet, force them to wear a particular uniform. A clown suit comes to mind.
Bloomberg’s a woman.
Why doesn’t Mayor Bloomberg just go and mind his own f’n business?
I actually posted it on Bloomie’s Facebook page.
Yeah, I think they have that trademarked
Actually, the Judge issued an excellent opinion, which ought to be sustained in the event Bloomberg appeals. In administrative law, a court is supposed to defer to the judgment of an “expert” administrative agency, which is a presumption built into the law. In both federal and state administrative law, a judge basically has to let an administrative regulation stand unless he or she finds that the regulation is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to established statutory or case law.
So, therefore, the judge could not throw the regulation out based on its own merits—he had to look at it through the prism of the prevaling administrative procedure law. This is a typical analysis in all administrative appeals. If you attack the agency regulation or ruling head-on, you lose, because the court is going to defer to the “expertise” of the agency.
>> “It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all ... “
Think Obamacare, elected officials, corp and union exemptions, etc.
I’m guessing you haven’t read the opinion. Even the reporter wrote that the judge also said it’s a legislative power not an executive power. Unless you’ve read the actual opinion you have no idea what the judge understood or didn’t understand.
King Bloomers is an embarassment. Hard to beleive New Yorkers have fallen so low.
There is a legal reason, several actually, and the judge used one of them. Equal protection under the law. However, the real reason this law should be struck down is that the constitution of the US does not give any legal authority to the government, local, state or feds, to tell us what to eat or drink or how much of it we can consume. The law is unconstitutional as are laws pertaining to smoking, guns and drugs.
By allowing the government to tell us what we could put into our bodies we opened a can of worms, now they feel they can regulate every thing we do, they simply don't have that amount of LEGAL authority and we need to strike these idiotic laws down and bring these law breaking public officials to justice.
Because it is...
I will grant that the US Constitution gives no such authority. But I do not think the state of New York derives any authority at all from it, since it is an enumeration of Federal powers only. As far as I know there might be something in New York's constitution that the law may violate, and I hope there is. As for the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, I can't see that it applies.
I guess I should justify why I don’t think the 14th Amendment applies...let me put it this way, it would apply if former slaves were denied the 32 ounces and whites were not.
As for equal protection, this applies in this case also because the law didn't apply to all sugary(I hate that expression, actually)drinks equally, therefore the manufacturers of certain drinks were not afforded equal protection, or should I say some manufacturers were held above the law, which amounts to the same thing.