It's still their private pages. They don't have to hide who they are. Personally, I think it's chicken **** to block people, but is it unconstitutional? No.
SCOTUS Watch--Chevron Deference Doctrine overturned; Administrative State takes a HUGE hit.
- Thread starter Chop
- Start date
It's still their private pages. They don't have to hide who they are. Personally, I think it's chicken **** to block people, but is it unconstitutional? No.
SCOTUS Justice worried that the First Amendment might "hamstring" the government.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment “hamstrings" government
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment “hamstrings" government
This one is very interesting. It could have far-reaching consequences, some unexpected (or as-of-yet unknown).
From IVF to birth control, Supreme Court abortion pill case could spark challenges to other drugs
"The pharmaceutical industry warns that if courts can second-guess FDA approval of drugs, cases could arise on other contentious issues including vaccines, birth control and hormone therapy.
When the court on Tuesdayweighs whether to roll back Food and Drug Administration findings that made mifepristone more readily available, it is not just access to that particular drug, used for the majority of abortions nationwide, that is on the line.
The pharmaceutical industry has raised the alarm, telling both the justices in court filings and anyone else who will listen that giving individual federal judges the power to cast aside the agency’s scientific health and safety findings would cause chaos within the sector.
It would likely lead to litigation over other drugs, both current and those yet to be approved, on which people have strong feelings.
If the anti-abortion groups win, “anyone with an ideological disagreement, coupled with a scientifically untrained judge, could challenge the FDA’s authority,” said Amanda Banks, a physician and entrepreneur who signed a brief along with dozens of other pharmaceutical executives and companies backing the FDA."
From IVF to birth control, Supreme Court abortion pill case could spark challenges to other drugs
"The pharmaceutical industry warns that if courts can second-guess FDA approval of drugs, cases could arise on other contentious issues including vaccines, birth control and hormone therapy.
When the court on Tuesdayweighs whether to roll back Food and Drug Administration findings that made mifepristone more readily available, it is not just access to that particular drug, used for the majority of abortions nationwide, that is on the line.
The pharmaceutical industry has raised the alarm, telling both the justices in court filings and anyone else who will listen that giving individual federal judges the power to cast aside the agency’s scientific health and safety findings would cause chaos within the sector.
It would likely lead to litigation over other drugs, both current and those yet to be approved, on which people have strong feelings.
If the anti-abortion groups win, “anyone with an ideological disagreement, coupled with a scientifically untrained judge, could challenge the FDA’s authority,” said Amanda Banks, a physician and entrepreneur who signed a brief along with dozens of other pharmaceutical executives and companies backing the FDA."
Well, it will probably be good for the lawyers...
“My biggest concern is the precedent it sets ... could have a chilling effect on investors coming into our business and investing in our innovative companies,” said Paul Hastings, an industry veteran who is the CEO of Nkarta Therapeutics and signed on to the same brief as Banks.
He and others stressed that the FDA is considered the “gold standard” of drug regulation worldwide. For investors, FDA approval is the final part of a rigorous and expensive process. Only 1 in 10 drugs under development ever end up being marketed, Hastings said.
Investors might look for safer bets if FDA approval merely leads to constant litigation, he added."
I propose a 2 (or even 3) tiered prescription drug scheme.
Level 1 drugs -- same as it is now.
Level 2 drugs -- experimental drugs, not quite meeting the current standards of testing, but showing some promise and a reasonable level of rigor in their testing. For these, a patient of sound mind, plus 2 licensed doctors could sign off and allow the patient to buy and use these drugs. Think of the cancer patient, for whom the normal treatments have not worked, and he/she wants to try the experimental drug.
Level 3 drugs -- stuff that is way "out there", and not tested much at all, including non-traditional medicine. Individual states could allow these sorts of meds to be sold and used, subject to the Level 2 requirements of a patient of sound mind, plus 2 licensed doctors signing off. You would also have to visit a licensed medical counselor (in person or by Zoom) who would explain the dangers, and question the patient. The counselor has no veto power, but each patient would at least have to hear the counselor's warnings before purchasing the Level 3 drug.
Level 1 drugs -- same as it is now.
Level 2 drugs -- experimental drugs, not quite meeting the current standards of testing, but showing some promise and a reasonable level of rigor in their testing. For these, a patient of sound mind, plus 2 licensed doctors could sign off and allow the patient to buy and use these drugs. Think of the cancer patient, for whom the normal treatments have not worked, and he/she wants to try the experimental drug.
Level 3 drugs -- stuff that is way "out there", and not tested much at all, including non-traditional medicine. Individual states could allow these sorts of meds to be sold and used, subject to the Level 2 requirements of a patient of sound mind, plus 2 licensed doctors signing off. You would also have to visit a licensed medical counselor (in person or by Zoom) who would explain the dangers, and question the patient. The counselor has no veto power, but each patient would at least have to hear the counselor's warnings before purchasing the Level 3 drug.
Eliminate drug advertising.
Reduce patent length by half.
Allow out of country drug ordering.
Permit Medicare negotiation for drug pricing.
Eliminate the idiotic coverage gap.
Prohibit geographic pricing discrimination.
And oh yeah, prosecute legislators that take pharma $$$.
Just a few of my suggestions.
Reduce patent length by half.
Allow out of country drug ordering.
Permit Medicare negotiation for drug pricing.
Eliminate the idiotic coverage gap.
Prohibit geographic pricing discrimination.
And oh yeah, prosecute legislators that take pharma $$$.
Just a few of my suggestions.
I got on board the eliminate drug ads bandwagon when that fat chick started singing show tunes about her A1C
I would reduce it to 5 years
Post of the year material.
Listeater has A1C issues? Bless her heart.
The SCOTUS unanimously struck down a 5th Circuit decision on the abortion pill, based on lack-of-standing.
"The Supreme Court unanimously rejecting a challenge to FDA decisions that made it easier for women to obtain and use mifepristone clearly wasn’t about the Supreme Court protecting access to abortion. (Even though mifepristone is one of the two drugs used in almost two-thirds of all abortions in this country.) Instead, Thursday’s ruling was about the Supreme Court protecting a doctrine that limits access to federal courts.
That ruling also doubled as a rebuke of the most conservative appellate court in the country. All nine members of the court felt forced to correct a deeply flawed opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that would have eviscerated the court’s standing doctrine. This is the third time in about a year that the high court has had to slap down an erroneous decision on standing reached by judges out of the 5th Circuit. It remains to be seen whether this third reprimand by the Supreme Court will have an effect on the 5th Circuit.
As a legal doctrine, standing demands that individuals or groups who sue in federal courts are the right ones to bring their cases. It requires that plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that was caused by the action they are complaining of that can be remedied by winning their suits."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Opinion | Even the ultraconservatives on SCOTUS reject this conservative court’s antics
"The Supreme Court unanimously rejecting a challenge to FDA decisions that made it easier for women to obtain and use mifepristone clearly wasn’t about the Supreme Court protecting access to abortion. (Even though mifepristone is one of the two drugs used in almost two-thirds of all abortions in this country.) Instead, Thursday’s ruling was about the Supreme Court protecting a doctrine that limits access to federal courts.
That ruling also doubled as a rebuke of the most conservative appellate court in the country. All nine members of the court felt forced to correct a deeply flawed opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that would have eviscerated the court’s standing doctrine. This is the third time in about a year that the high court has had to slap down an erroneous decision on standing reached by judges out of the 5th Circuit. It remains to be seen whether this third reprimand by the Supreme Court will have an effect on the 5th Circuit.
As a legal doctrine, standing demands that individuals or groups who sue in federal courts are the right ones to bring their cases. It requires that plaintiffs demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that was caused by the action they are complaining of that can be remedied by winning their suits."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
Opinion | Even the ultraconservatives on SCOTUS reject this conservative court’s antics
Last edited:
Some people are really freaking out about the 5th Circuit...
Why here's 3 sensible and objective
Centrist publications weighing in:
https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ppeals-is-spearheading-a-judicial-power-grab/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...g-out-claim-be-americas-most-dangerous-court/
America’s Fifth Circuit Problem
"The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is part of a judicial pipeline that fast-tracks right-wing rulings to the Supreme Court—and creates endless delays for policies that protect and benefit the public.
Corporate America and conservative activists agree: We live in the United States of Texas, Louisiana & Mississippi.
These states have increasingly played host to major federal lawsuits implicating national policy, primarily in the Northern District of Texas, where certain divisions have just one or two judges, appointed by Republican presidents. The Amarillo division, for example, is only assigned one judge, and so cases there flow unilaterally to ultraconservative Donald Trump appointee and anti-abortion activist Matthew Kacsmaryk. In the Fort Worth division, you get a choice of two judges: George W. Bush appointee Reed O’Connor, or Trump judge Mark Pittman.
All of these judges are reliable champions for a radically conservative vision of the law. When their rulings are appealed, they end up at the just-as-conservative Fifth Circuit, also stacked with partisan ideologues. This has generated a pipeline that fast-tracks right-wing rulings to the Supreme Court—and creates endless delays for policies that protect and benefit the public."
Why here's 3 sensible and objective
Centrist publications weighing in:https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ppeals-is-spearheading-a-judicial-power-grab/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...g-out-claim-be-americas-most-dangerous-court/
America’s Fifth Circuit Problem
"The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is part of a judicial pipeline that fast-tracks right-wing rulings to the Supreme Court—and creates endless delays for policies that protect and benefit the public.
Corporate America and conservative activists agree: We live in the United States of Texas, Louisiana & Mississippi.
These states have increasingly played host to major federal lawsuits implicating national policy, primarily in the Northern District of Texas, where certain divisions have just one or two judges, appointed by Republican presidents. The Amarillo division, for example, is only assigned one judge, and so cases there flow unilaterally to ultraconservative Donald Trump appointee and anti-abortion activist Matthew Kacsmaryk. In the Fort Worth division, you get a choice of two judges: George W. Bush appointee Reed O’Connor, or Trump judge Mark Pittman.
All of these judges are reliable champions for a radically conservative vision of the law. When their rulings are appealed, they end up at the just-as-conservative Fifth Circuit, also stacked with partisan ideologues. This has generated a pipeline that fast-tracks right-wing rulings to the Supreme Court—and creates endless delays for policies that protect and benefit the public."
Last edited:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/07/politics/supreme-court-5th-circuit/index.html
There goes that whacky 5th Circuit again...
And to think, people used to complain that the 9th Circuit had gone off the rails...
"A conservative appeals court in the South seems to be exasperating the Supreme Court
If there is a down-to-the-deadline scramble at the Supreme Court to intervene on a hot-button case with far-reaching implications, there is a good chance that the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is the source of the legal fracas.
The very conservative appeals court – which oversees federal appeals arising from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi – has been responsible some of the most far-right, sweeping rulings that have been appealed to the Supreme Court. Many of those clashes have played out on the so-called shadow docket, the colloquial term for emergency applications that high court must decide on a quick timeline, without the full process of briefing and oral arguments.
The [Supreme] court has paused 5th Circuit rulings that would have blocked federal gun restrictions, interfered with federal immigration activity and limited Biden administration contact with social media companies."
There goes that whacky 5th Circuit again...
And to think, people used to complain that the 9th Circuit had gone off the rails...
"A conservative appeals court in the South seems to be exasperating the Supreme Court
If there is a down-to-the-deadline scramble at the Supreme Court to intervene on a hot-button case with far-reaching implications, there is a good chance that the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is the source of the legal fracas.
The very conservative appeals court – which oversees federal appeals arising from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi – has been responsible some of the most far-right, sweeping rulings that have been appealed to the Supreme Court. Many of those clashes have played out on the so-called shadow docket, the colloquial term for emergency applications that high court must decide on a quick timeline, without the full process of briefing and oral arguments.
The [Supreme] court has paused 5th Circuit rulings that would have blocked federal gun restrictions, interfered with federal immigration activity and limited Biden administration contact with social media companies."
Ha! I've got to find a way to copy and crop the bottom right champion of liberty, errrrrr, I mean protestor, and make he/she/they/them my avatar.
(something tells me she (he/she/it/they/them) has never been in need of an abortion. Can't quite put my finger on why...?)
(something tells me she (he/she/it/they/them) has never been in need of an abortion. Can't quite put my finger on why...?)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/07/politics/supreme-court-5th-circuit/index.html
There goes that whacky 5th Circuit again...
And to think, people used to complain that the 9th Circuit had gone off the rails...
"A conservative appeals court in the South seems to be exasperating the Supreme Court
If there is a down-to-the-deadline scramble at the Supreme Court to intervene on a hot-button case with far-reaching implications, there is a good chance that the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is the source of the legal fracas.
The very conservative appeals court – which oversees federal appeals arising from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi – has been responsible some of the most far-right, sweeping rulings that have been appealed to the Supreme Court. Many of those clashes have played out on the so-called shadow docket, the colloquial term for emergency applications that high court must decide on a quick timeline, without the full process of briefing and oral arguments.
The [Supreme] court has paused 5th Circuit rulings that would have blocked federal gun restrictions, interfered with federal immigration activity and limited Biden administration contact with social media companies."
For a very long time, the 9th Circuit basically was the toilet paper supplier at the Supreme Court. I don't remember any mainstream media outlets criticising them for it.
The 5th Circuit was dead wrong on standing, and the SCOTUS was dead right on standing (unanimous decision).
The SCOTUS just *****-slapped the 5th Circuit.
9-0
Last edited:
It was 6-3.
Justice Jackson makes Sotomayor look downright brilliant.
9-0 Vote = Unanimous, with Thomas writing a concurring opinion.
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine - SCOTUSblog
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Consolidated with:
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
23-235 5th Cir. Mar 26, 2024
Jun 13, 2024 9-0 Kavanaugh OT 2023
Holding: Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 13, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
Purdue Pharma
Off the radar of most people , but this is actually pretty big. No more non-consensual releases of non-debtors through Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy reorganization plans.
Basically, the company (Purdue Pharma) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but its owners (the Sackler family) did not file for bankruptcy. They attempted to push through a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Purdue Pharma that shielded the non-bankrupt members of the Sackler family from future liability. Gorsuch put the brakes on that plan. 5-4 decision.
So, with regard to the claims of persons who did not agree to release their claims against the non-debtors:
No release of non-debtors through a company's Ch. 11 plan: Gorsuch, Brown-Jackson, Alito, Thomas, Coney-Barrett (5)
Sure, why not, release non-debtors through a company's Ch. 11 plan: Kavanagh, Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts (4)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/27/purdue-pharma-supreme-court-opioid-bankruptcy/
"The justices ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, concluded that the bankruptcy code does not allow parties who did not file for bankruptcy to be shielded from lawsuits by claimants who did not consent."
Off the radar of most people , but this is actually pretty big. No more non-consensual releases of non-debtors through Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy reorganization plans.
Basically, the company (Purdue Pharma) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but its owners (the Sackler family) did not file for bankruptcy. They attempted to push through a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Purdue Pharma that shielded the non-bankrupt members of the Sackler family from future liability. Gorsuch put the brakes on that plan. 5-4 decision.
So, with regard to the claims of persons who did not agree to release their claims against the non-debtors:
No release of non-debtors through a company's Ch. 11 plan: Gorsuch, Brown-Jackson, Alito, Thomas, Coney-Barrett (5)
Sure, why not, release non-debtors through a company's Ch. 11 plan: Kavanagh, Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts (4)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/27/purdue-pharma-supreme-court-opioid-bankruptcy/
"The justices ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, concluded that the bankruptcy code does not allow parties who did not file for bankruptcy to be shielded from lawsuits by claimants who did not consent."
Last edited:
Re: Purdue Pharma
So basically, no more of this nifty trick of disposing personal liability of (future lawsuits against) management, officers, directors, involved shareholders, or any other person through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of the company. (unless the plaintiff/party holding the claim consents)
So basically, no more of this nifty trick of disposing personal liability of (future lawsuits against) management, officers, directors, involved shareholders, or any other person through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of the company. (unless the plaintiff/party holding the claim consents)
"Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, whose office first sued in 2019 and eventually agreed to the deal, praised the high court’s decision. “Billionaire wrongdoers should not be allowed to shield blood money in bankruptcy court,” he said in a statement.
...
The high-stakes legal fight has divided relatives of overdose victims and those whose lives were shattered by opioid addiction. Some insisted the bankruptcy deal was allowing the Sackler family to get off easy, while others said immunity was the only way to get desperately needed settlement money to communities and victims themselves. Individual victims had been slated to get a total of up to $750 million, or between $3,500 to $48,000 per claim."
...
The high-stakes legal fight has divided relatives of overdose victims and those whose lives were shattered by opioid addiction. Some insisted the bankruptcy deal was allowing the Sackler family to get off easy, while others said immunity was the only way to get desperately needed settlement money to communities and victims themselves. Individual victims had been slated to get a total of up to $750 million, or between $3,500 to $48,000 per claim."
Recent Threads
-
2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 11K
- West Mall
-
Obama staged the Charlottesville clash?
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 15
- West Mall
