Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JUDGE BLOCKS BLOOMBERG'S SODA BAN Calls It 'Arbitrary And Capricious'
TBI ^ | 3-11-2013 | Kim Bhasin

Posted on 03/11/2013 1:38:49 PM PDT by blam

JUDGE BLOCKS BLOOMBERG'S SODA BAN — Calls It 'Arbitrary And Capricious'

Kim Bhasin
March 11,2013

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: bloomberg; newyork; sodaban; stupidliberals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 03/11/2013 1:38:49 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
“arbitrary and capricious” i thought that was the liberal political platform.
2 posted on 03/11/2013 1:40:50 PM PDT by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


3 posted on 03/11/2013 1:41:06 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Ha ha ha ha


4 posted on 03/11/2013 1:41:36 PM PDT by rrrod (at home in Medellin Colombia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Well Shorty, what are you gonna do NOW? /s;)


5 posted on 03/11/2013 1:47:13 PM PDT by Frank_2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

NY’ers elected this a-hole. Let them suffer under his rule. The court should let him go wild.


6 posted on 03/11/2013 1:48:16 PM PDT by brownsfan (Behold, the power of government cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Bloomie just didn’t want people walking around with a cup taller than he was.


7 posted on 03/11/2013 1:48:42 PM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
just look at that face on Bloomberg!!!!

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...

8 posted on 03/11/2013 1:51:05 PM PDT by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


9 posted on 03/11/2013 1:51:34 PM PDT by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Bingo. Judge is right, but for the wrong reason.


10 posted on 03/11/2013 1:52:39 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blam

How is this different from their 7 round mag limit? Or others’ 10 or whatever? All tyranny based on control only.


11 posted on 03/11/2013 1:53:08 PM PDT by Monty22002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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


12 posted on 03/11/2013 1:53:43 PM PDT by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


13 posted on 03/11/2013 2:00:22 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


14 posted on 03/11/2013 2:06:05 PM PDT by ez (Laws only apply to little people. Criminals, politicians, and newsies are exempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

LMAO, about damn time someone knock bloomberg down.


15 posted on 03/11/2013 2:08:14 PM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

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.


16 posted on 03/11/2013 2:14:11 PM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: blam
The Mayor Bloomberg song!
17 posted on 03/11/2013 2:16:53 PM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haircutter

Bloomie, it seems, has met his match.

Ya just don’t screw with PepsiCo...


18 posted on 03/11/2013 2:19:09 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: blam

a voice of sanity...


19 posted on 03/11/2013 2:20:25 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam; All
Photo & Video Sharing by SmugMug
20 posted on 03/11/2013 2:28:31 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Every so often an official in government thinks clearly.


21 posted on 03/11/2013 2:29:38 PM PDT by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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!


22 posted on 03/11/2013 2:30:36 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

I still think thousands of people should send either empty large size soda cups; or liters of soda to Bloomie.


23 posted on 03/11/2013 2:31:35 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

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....


24 posted on 03/11/2013 2:35:08 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam
Watch for the NYC Department of Health to start writing up MacDonald's,Wendy's,etc like crazy in the coming weeks and watch for Cuomo The Lesser to dig up whatever he can on Judge Tingling...and to make stuff up if necessary.I'm gonna be hitting Manhattan a couple of times in the next few weeks.While there I'm gonna make sure to order a 24oz Pepsi..*with* sugar...on each visit.
25 posted on 03/11/2013 2:35:59 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative ("Progressives" toss the word "racist" around like chimps toss their feces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
I still think thousands of people should send either empty large size soda cups; or liters of soda to Bloomie.

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.

26 posted on 03/11/2013 2:47:34 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative ("Progressives" toss the word "racist" around like chimps toss their feces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: blam
“arbitrary and capricious” is the core of what's known in NYC legal terms as an Article 78 proceeding. Article 78 of the City Charter is very brief and it basically says New York City agencies (including Nanny's office) MUST do justice. What an aggrieved party does is get a judge to declare what the city has done is unjust. Fired cops often successfully sue the Police Commissioner using Article 78. - just saying
27 posted on 03/11/2013 2:53:40 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Can one imagine being married to this insufferable man. If he is married, I truly feel sorry for his wife.


28 posted on 03/11/2013 2:57:26 PM PDT by diamond6 (Need scientific proof of God? Check out: http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: haircutter

I think this time, this judge handed Bloomy his rear-end. :)


29 posted on 03/11/2013 3:05:33 PM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: diamond6

I just watched the emperor’s press conference and I must say I haven’t had such a good time since before election day!


30 posted on 03/11/2013 3:06:13 PM PDT by LisaFab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: blam

So, NYC just wasted a lot of $$$ on those 17-oz tester cups.

Nice going Bloomberg. No wonder your city is in financial trouble.


31 posted on 03/11/2013 3:19:59 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


32 posted on 03/11/2013 3:21:49 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I am not sure the judge is right. Maybe he has a real legal reason, but I am not seeing what it is. Granted that the law is stupid, invasive, and destructive. But I don't think that can be a legal basis for overturning it. The legal remedy is to vote people that make stupid, invasive, and destructive laws out of office, not to have a judge overturn laws that they consider bad.
33 posted on 03/11/2013 3:22:09 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LisaFab
Bloomberg Blasts Soda Ban Decision: 'The Judge Is Totally In Error'
34 posted on 03/11/2013 3:22:53 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: blam

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.


35 posted on 03/11/2013 3:31:51 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Sometimes it takes calamity to lead to serenity - FReeper RacerX1128)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Bloomberg’s a woman.


36 posted on 03/11/2013 3:32:03 PM PDT by AdaGray (squi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Why doesn’t Mayor Bloomberg just go and mind his own f’n business?


37 posted on 03/11/2013 3:44:09 PM PDT by donhunt (Certified and proud "Son of a Bitch".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
ah just in time


38 posted on 03/11/2013 4:03:03 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Good one!

ROTFLOLOL.


39 posted on 03/11/2013 4:28:03 PM PDT by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I actually posted it on Bloomie’s Facebook page.


40 posted on 03/11/2013 5:18:20 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
"arbitrary and capricious" i thought that was the liberal political platform.

Yeah, I think they have that trademarked

41 posted on 03/11/2013 5:25:32 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you've likely misread the situation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

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.


42 posted on 03/11/2013 6:00:39 PM PDT by nd76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

>> “It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all ... “

Think Obamacare, elected officials, corp and union exemptions, etc.


43 posted on 03/11/2013 6:04:39 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

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.


44 posted on 03/11/2013 6:13:27 PM PDT by KevinB (A country that would elect Barack Obama president twice is no longer worth fighting for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blam

King Bloomers is an embarassment. Hard to beleive New Yorkers have fallen so low.


45 posted on 03/11/2013 11:42:43 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
But I don't think that can be a legal basis for overturning it.

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.

46 posted on 03/12/2013 5:09:39 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: blam
Now let's see if some NY judge will rule the SAFE Act "arbitrary and capricious".

Because it is...

47 posted on 03/12/2013 8:05:49 AM PDT by Gritty (Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom; it is the argument of tyrants-PM Wm Pitt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
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.

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.

48 posted on 03/12/2013 10:35:53 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calex59

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.


49 posted on 03/12/2013 10:38:13 AM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
The government, state, fed or local, has no authority to control what we eat or drink, or smoke for that matter. The constitution was written to preclude any such abuses of power and judges should uphold the constitution.

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.

50 posted on 03/12/2013 12:31:56 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson