![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7ce891be-9f12-4f28-92a8-52cd9e16139a.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
NGL it’s kind of a brilliant way to make Netanyahu show his true intentions to the Israeli public.
NGL it’s kind of a brilliant way to make Netanyahu show his true intentions to the Israeli public.
I’m confused now. The commenter says they have high factuality but the bot says they have medium credibility.
What does that mean? Isn’t credibility very tightly linked to factuality?
Found another article with more information:
The court found that the FTC’s effort to implement the rule likely exceeds its congressional authorization under the FTC Act and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious approach to the issue of regulating non-competes.
Rather than issue a nationwide injunction barring enforcement of the rule across the country, the court’s ruling is limited to the parties in the case.
The court intends to issue a final ruling on the merits by August 30, 2024, before the FTC rule is set to go into effect. The court’s subsequent ruling may prevent the ultimate implementation of the rule on a national level.
So basically If I understand this correctly, the court is slapping the FTC for jurisdiction and saying “until further ruling Ryan LLC can legally use their non compete clauses”.
So the judge has a vague notion to rule against the FTC but it’s not clear if they do or if it’s gonna have national consequences, as this could just as well be a case specific ruling.
So yeah, the indicators lean a little bit towards non competes staying legal, but we’re still way out from knowing what will happen.
Yes.
Under employment laws you can quit basically at any time with given notice and you can apply to any job no matter who you are or what you did before. The non compete clauses are always part of the employment contract. Usually, what’s in the contract is binding, but: there’s things that might be voided upon examination. Here things like consideration and unconscionability come into play. I assume this clause would be ruled unconscionable against employment laws, therefore the clause is basically removed from contracts after the fact and precedent allows for it to be voided upon future use.
employment laws > contract law. That’s all it boils down to I assume, just what weighs more.
A lot of European countries allow only very limited non compete clauses or none at all. Moving in that direction is not really without precedent, so there’s your legal argument.
Also obligatory IANAL, if you think I’m wrong and you got sources, please correct me. I wanna learn what I don’t know.
It’s devastating that this is one of only a few times cops might actually be held accountable.
You’re 100% right. The supreme Court ruled on the duty to protect and on qualified immunity, the only way the state could get a verdict is if it’s very narrowly tailored to either “extremely egregious and inhumane behavior” or for “stopping the parents”. There’s no other way for a judge to make a guilty verdict and at the same time make it appeal-proof to some degree.
And we just gotta hope and pray this gets through and doesn’t get overturned.
Which is the only legal remedy you’ll ever get against qualified immunity btw. There has to be a specific procedure for this that has been unmistakenly violated.
So let me get this straight, it’s not bribery because they had written contracts and it was afterwards? So if I let an official make investments into my company on behalf of me and I gave him money for it, it’s only a problem if I gave him money before or I had no contract to show for it.
That is such a bonkers distinction I really wanna see how the fuck they define if the contract for the legal bribery is sufficient or not. Does it need a stamp? What the fuck
As a German, the contrast in education and training for police is unfathomable. Yes, we still have a problem with some cops being Nazis, but cops don’t kill people because “I was scared” here. They usually kill them after an act of terrorism that killed a lot more people, or if they had a standoff for like 2h and the guy has a gun.
Which absolutely is the better way.
But ofc, banning guns is really helpful in the first place, because wouldn’t you know, banning a killing device rapidly decreases the amount of killings. Funny how that works. I would even argue it’s cause and effect and not just coincidental.
I wanna see the evidence and the law in this case
This is gonna be interesting af
Free education? Hell yeah brother!
You can equally find both things wrong. This is not a “either Scholz is wrong or the AfD is corrupt”. There’s more parties than SPD and AfD. In fact, that’s what the system is built on.
What the fuck are you on about. There is evidence that the right-wing party AfD in Germany has financial support from China and other various support from Russia, as well as ties to at least Russia.
This is not a “yeah right”, their political proximity is very much on full display, even just listening to their speeches.
Welcome to Germany. We use bureaucracy for everything.