High Court Blocks Bill de Blasio’s Effort to Protect Black People from Soda

NY-Post-De-Blasio

It was a bad day for left-wingers drunk on executive authority. Not only did Obama have his recess appointments blocked by the Supreme Court, but New York’s radical left-wing mayor lost his war on soda… which he claimed to be fighting for black people.

Mayor de Blasio’s statement: “The city’s proposal to cap the size of sugary drinks responds to the alarming obesity and diabetes crisis that so disproportionally affects minority communities in New York City. We are hopeful that the State Court of Appeals will respect the expertise and authority of the Board of Health and its public health professionals and allow the city to move forward with a sound policy that can save the lives of many New Yorkers.”

Disproportionate impact. It’s everywhere. But sadly the court blocked Bill de Blasio’s effort to save black people from drinking the large sodas they wanted to drink.

New York’s highest court ruled 4-2 on Thursday to block New York City from banning the sale of large sugary drinks in restaurants and other venues.

In its majority opinion, the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of Health “exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority. By choosing among competing policy goals, without any legislative delegation or guidance, the board engaged in law-making and thus infringed upon the legislative jurisdiction of the City Council.”

When running for mayor last year, Mr. de Blasio, a supporter of the ban, said he would pursue council legislation to impose the ban if the courts ultimately refused to let the city move forward. An aide said Thursday the mayor is reviewing his options.

In a statement, Mary Bassett, commissioner of the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said the ruling “does not change the fact that sugary drink consumption is a key driver of the obesity epidemic, and we will continue to look for ways to stem the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes by seeking to limit the pernicious effects of aggressive and predatory marketing of sugary drinks and unhealthy foods.”

First they came for cigarettes. Then they came for absolutely everything.

  • Habbgun

    First they came for cigarettes. Then they came for absolutely everything.

    Hate to disagree with you but Leftists don’t come for the snow, the trash or to a meeting where they have to explain why their policies don’t work.

  • DogmaelJones1

    “First they came for cigarettes. Then they came for absolutely everything.” And horses, too. But when he goes after super-sized Starbucks lattes, then you will hear the cafe crowd scream bloody murder. No fair! Leave us liberals alone!

    • laura r

      the starbucks flavored coffee is chemicalized syrips. chemical whipped cream. your paying for the packaging, the illusion.

      • DogmaelJones1

        Fortunately, I’m not a member of the Starbucks cafe society.

  • nomoretraitors

    DeBlasio’s face next to the hammer and sickle. Nothing could be more appropriate.

  • nomoretraitors

    “alarming obesity and diabetes crisis that so disproportionally affects minority communities”
    I guess personal choice doesn’t factor into the equation

  • Boots

    I think de Blasio sees people having the ability to choose whether to drink a large sugary drink is somehow a metaphor for freedom… and we can’t have people thinking they might be free. Of course we still do have some freedom… and it amazes me more people with money don’t exercise the freedom to flee New York.

    • laura r

      no one is denied the right to buy soda, you just have to buy 2 bottles. big deal.

      • Pete

        Just creeping incrementalism. They are making it harder for you to do want you want.

        First they would ban soda sold in large bottles. If the obesity epidemic is not solved you do not think they would try to regulate soda even more via ever smaller bottles or eventually an outright ban?

        They could do it the same way they ban guns, through EPa regs on lead smelting.

      • Pete

        You reply did not post. I have no ideal why. Maybe it was the word snob. So much for software filters. You were calling yourself a snob not anyone else. On the bright side/ downside they have said they now have programs that can pass a Turing Test.

        I pass up a soda 90% of the time or more when I order fast food and go with a unsweetened tea. I do so for 2 reasons. Recently I learned that the phosphorus they put in soda to prevent the sugar from clumping completes with calcium for absorption. I see so many theories that they “push”, but I can see this one. If I am wrong no harm no foul. The second reason is the old man pushed it just like he pushed seat belts. The point is the decision was mine. The impetus came from family or friends and information and not the government be it king, mayor other autocrats.

        If there would be outside pressure, I would rather be from voluntary contracts than from government. I would rather contract with insurance agencies or the pre-insurance “benefit or mutual aid societies, then rely on government.

        • laura r

          my entire comment didnt post? or just the word snob. i said i will continue to be an elitist snob. but that is not a banned word.

        • laura r

          the reply did post scroll down

      • kafir4life

        I left that hellhole, and save over 200 bucks a week in taxes. I no longer have to fund bloated teacher’s pensions, nor do I have to pay for Mario’s idiot boy’s follies, nor Billy boys idiocy.
        Oh – and the money I saved tax deferred for my retirement? I just got a 7% raise by not having to pay a nickel of it to the PRNY

  • laura r

    if someone wants 32 onces of soda, they can buy 2 16once bottles. this is a scam to make $, the other day i saw a 64 once bottle, im in central america now. they caught up w/the U.S. in obesity& diabetis. now mexico leads for a few%.. if they banned 64 once, 32 once, 16 once, guess what??? people will buy pack of 6 8 once cans. more revenue. soda was already “banned” in my house by my mother in the 1950s, we drank bubbled water (selzer) & ginger ale. so was white mushy bread (banned). and surprise: diet soda is worse than regular it has even more chemicals. the information is out there, but people should have the freedom of “choice”. its not only black people who are diabetic/ enormous but most of the white population as well. why is everything a racial issue?

    • kafir4life

      So you’re good with the government telling you what you can and can’t have? Kudos to your mom for making the right decision. A decision that was HERS to make, not “daddys of all” like Billy boy.

      • CaoMoo

        Think you missed that her point is your point.

      • laura r

        i dont give a damn what the govt does or doesnt do. i agree w/them its bad for you, but you should have a right to drink it as much as you want. whats not to “get”???

      • laura r

        in my universe these things would not exist. so there would be no need for banning.

    • dontdoitagain

      Wouldn’t the purchase of two bottles instead of one contribute to the global warming? Instead of one bottle you now have two complete with the plastic (generally) caps? Maybe its two energy using cans containing pop instead of one? I’m surprised that the climate chaos people aren’t all over this. Destroying the earth for smaller sodas. The shame of it all. (heavy sarcasm)

  • kafir4life

    So Billy boy thinks that blacks “need” him to protect them? So he’s saying they can’t be trusted to look out for themselves? How progressive of him.

    • Pete

      Rich and middle class blacks do not need knight in shining armor, Bloomberg, for protection.

      For that matter poor black do not need him either. All they need are jobs, a growing economy. In a generation wanting what richer blacks or richer people have, they would figure out what is good for them.