VakAttack Posted March 1 Posted March 1 https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5170090-rfk-jr-hhs-public-comment-rulemaking-ends/ RFK bans public comment,breaking 50 years of precedent. You are a voice of reason. - @Paul158
Offthemat Posted March 1 Posted March 1 Come up with something better than “because that’s the way we’ve always done it.” 1
VakAttack Posted March 1 Author Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 6:39 PM, Offthemat said: Come up with something better than “because that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Expand Ok, buddy. #FreeSpeechAbsolutist You are a voice of reason. - @Paul158
Le duke Posted March 1 Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 6:39 PM, Offthemat said: Come up with something better than “because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”I thought you guys were all about holding the government accountable to the people?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bigbrog Posted March 1 Posted March 1 And crickets from you yahoos when it was done 100's of times by people from the other side of the isle....
VakAttack Posted March 1 Author Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 7:31 PM, Bigbrog said: And crickets from you yahoos when it was done 100's of times by people from the other side of the isle.... Expand Because, as has been explained multiple times, the 1st Amendment applies only to government actors, of which RFK is now one. Private companies can do what they want. I don't think it's a violation of the 1st Amendment that Elon is a censorious ass, it's just hypocritical given his rhetoric. It's absolutely his right. You are a voice of reason. - @Paul158
Bigbrog Posted March 1 Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 7:40 PM, VakAttack said: Because, as has been explained multiple times, the 1st Amendment applies only to government actors, of which RFK is now one. Private companies can do what they want. I don't think it's a violation of the 1st Amendment that Elon is a censorious ass, it's just hypocritical given his rhetoric. It's absolutely his right. Expand LOL...who is talking about private companies or Elon??
1032004 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 7:31 PM, Bigbrog said: And crickets from you yahoos when it was done 100's of times by people from the other side of the isle.... Expand You guys really love your whataboutisms huh
VakAttack Posted March 1 Author Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 7:47 PM, Bigbrog said: LOL...who is talking about private companies or Elon?? Expand Because that has been the primary discussion point on this topic. You are a voice of reason. - @Paul158
Husker_Du Posted March 1 Posted March 1 the way i read it, this is more about expediency than it is 'free speech', no? it seems like 'public input' in this case serves as red tape. i'm also not sure, but could lobbyists contribute to the problem in this scenario? also, is there another department that includes 'public input' in their process. seems weird in and of itself. TBD
Scouts Honor Posted March 1 Posted March 1 rich coming from the 'parents at board meetings are nazi terrorists' party 1
1032004 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 9:46 PM, Scouts Honor said: now do the govt trying to silence rfk Expand On 3/1/2025 at 7:48 PM, 1032004 said: You guys really love your whataboutisms huh Expand
Scouts Honor Posted March 1 Posted March 1 yes i know, you like govt silencing people when they hold different views than yours
1032004 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 10:09 PM, Scouts Honor said: yes i know, you like govt silencing people when they hold different views than yours Expand The point is that this administration was trying to claim they were different…
1032004 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 On 3/1/2025 at 10:32 PM, Scouts Honor said: oh they are they aren't actually silencing anyone Expand Article in the OP disagrees
Scouts Honor Posted March 1 Posted March 1 Although the APA exempts the requirement for public comment on matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” there has been a waiver, referred to as the Richardson waiver, on this exemption since 1971, allowing for interested parties to take part in the rulemaking process.
RockLobster Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/1/2025 at 11:15 PM, Scouts Honor said: no one is being silenced Expand Yes, they absolutely are being silenced. On 3/1/2025 at 11:16 PM, Scouts Honor said: Although the APA exempts the requirement for public comment on matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” there has been a waiver, referred to as the Richardson waiver, on this exemption since 1971, allowing for interested parties to take part in the rulemaking process. Expand Yes, the "Richardson waiver" did allow for people to have their voices heard... Until now. That same "Richardson waiver" was killed by RFK. No more public voices - they have been silenced. Quote Lawrence O. Gostin, faculty director of O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, said this move by Kennedy was a clear effort to avoid accountability. Gostin said he believes the policy is sure to be litigated, noting that courts have enforced the Richardson waiver in the past. Expand
1032004 Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/1/2025 at 11:16 PM, Scouts Honor said: Although the APA exempts the requirement for public comment on matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,” there has been a waiver, referred to as the Richardson waiver, on this exemption since 1971, allowing for interested parties to take part in the rulemaking process. Expand It’s legal, but they’re still being silenced. Kinda like how it is legal for Facebook and Twitter to silence people.
Bigbrog Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/2/2025 at 10:41 AM, 1032004 said: It’s legal, but they’re still being silenced. Kinda like how it is legal for Facebook and Twitter to silence people. Expand What was that whataboutism again??? 1
1032004 Posted March 2 Posted March 2 (edited) On 3/2/2025 at 3:42 PM, Bigbrog said: What was that whataboutism again??? Expand It’s not a whataboutism, I actually addressed the point: it’s legal, but it’s still silencing people. Several here like bringing up whataboutisms without actually addressing the point raised…like you did earlier Edited March 2 by 1032004 1
Scouts Honor Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/2/2025 at 6:01 AM, RockLobster said: Yes, they absolutely are being silenced. Yes, the "Richardson waiver" did allow for people to have their voices heard... Until now. That same "Richardson waiver" was killed by RFK. No more public voices - they have been silenced. Expand so you are saying these same people can't go to their elected reps and have them talk to the dept?
Scouts Honor Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 3/2/2025 at 10:41 AM, 1032004 said: It’s legal, but they’re still being silenced. Kinda like how it is legal for Facebook and Twitter to silence people. Expand see the above post I made to RL
Samson McKissick Staley Pittsford, New York Class of 2026 Committed to Cornell Projected Weight: 141, 149
Luke Fugazzotto Northwestern Lehigh, Pennsylvania Class of 2026 Committed to George Mason Projected Weight: 184
Brendan Sholders Westfield, Virginia Class of 2025 Committed to Franklin & Marshall Projected Weight: 133
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now