The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
Get those dirty brown people out of here....
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to remove legal protections from thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants in the United States, meaning they could be subject to deportation.
The court, on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines, ruled in favor of the administration, which asked to continue with its plan to strip Temporary Protected Status from about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.
Make cancer great again!
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court...
Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller
Make cancer great again!
7-2 that means some lefty judges also agreed on it . Bad decision
The states courts held Monsanto liable for not having a label on Roundup that federal law said they could not have. Seems pretty straight forward.
Did you read the summary of why the court made their decision? If not, how could you possibly have an opinion about whether or not it was a bad decision?
Nope never read it my bad I just assume big corporations decided money more important. Little guy gets cance gets fxcced
The states courts held Monsanto liable for not having a label on Roundup that federal law said they could not have. Seems pretty straight forward.
It wasn't straightforward, and I think the dissent had the better side of the argument, but you are correct that the Supreme Court was not deciding whether RoundUp caused cancer or whether Bayer/Monsanto should be liable as a matter of equity.
Nope never read it my bad I just assume big corporations decided money more important. Little guy gets cance gets fxcced
Corporations for sure virtually always choose profit over the well-being of the public when they think they can get away with it. Sometimes the courts don't let them get away with it, fortunately.
they got one correct, the rights of the perpetually stoned to bear firearms has been enshrined in precedent
shall not be infringed, amen
The states courts held Monsanto liable for not having a label on Roundup that federal law said they could not have. Seems pretty straight forward.
The statute itself said Monsanto needed to have a different label (this is dissent's reading, and frankly I agree) and Monsanto should have applied to get a compliant label approved.
Facts on the ground suggest this would have been a relatively routine filing, if a filing was required at all.
Nope never read it my bad I just assume big corporations decided money more important. Little guy gets cance gets fxcced
Do you really think a guy that writes like this reads anything before he comments on it? He is a TV guy.
Do you really think a guy that writes like this reads anything before he comments on it? He is a TV guy.
How many supreme court rulings have you read in their entirety
Probably thousands. What number makes you less stupid for commenting on something you haven’t read?
Supreme Court rules are interesting to read. Some of the clearest writing you'll ever see (it does not matter if you agree with the opinion or not, the writing is great).
If you haven't read the opinion, or at least a rigorous analysis of the opinion, it's very hard to comment in a way that means anything. It's akin to writing a review of a book that you haven't read.
If you haven't read the opinion, or at least a rigorous analysis of the opinion, it's very hard to comment in a way that means anything. It's akin to writing a review of a book that you haven't read.
Yes you are correct no one can write a review on a book they have not read but you can comment what others have read in a book and commented on . Take Kamala's book I never read it but many of the opinions from folks that have read it are well publicized. So it would be fair to say Kamala never selected Pete as her VP candidate because he was gay
Yes you are correct no one can write a review on a book they have not read but you can comment what others have read in a book and commented on . Take Kamala's book I never read it but many of the opinions from folks that have read it are well publicized. So it would be fair to say Kamala never selected Pete as her VP candidate because he was gay
That isn't what you were doing with this SCOTUS opinion.
With the Weed killer case no i was not doing that you are correct .
It wasn't straightforward, and I think the dissent had the better side of the argument, but you are correct that the Supreme Court was not deciding whether RoundUp caused cancer or whether Bayer/Monsanto should be liable as a matter of equity.
Why do you think the dissent had the better side of it?
I didn't spend much time looking into this, but it sounds like they complied with the federal labeling laws. If any state can add their own labelling rules there would be a supply chain nightmare.
Yes you are correct no one can write a review on a book they have not read but you can comment what others have read in a book and commented on . Take Kamala's book I never read it but many of the opinions from folks that have read it are well publicized. So it would be fair to say Kamala never selected Pete as her VP candidate because he was gay
So you think your prior comment was akin to reciting a “fact” from a book you admittedly haven’t read?
So you think your prior comment was akin to reciting a “fact” from a book you admittedly haven’t read?
Quite the synopsis from a book he hasn't read, eh?
Why do you think the dissent had the better side of it?
I didn't spend much time looking into this, but it sounds like they complied with the federal labeling laws. If any state can add their own labelling rules there would be a supply chain nightmare.
Their label was approved by the EPA. Monsanto and majority argued that's effectively proof positive they complied. This is basically "EPA approved my label... so I am good on all EPA regs, and since state can't add to EPA regs, I am good to and must go with the EPA approved label." This is effectively the chain that gets them to the express pre-emption logic.
The minority, Roc, and I think that's weak. 1. you can comply by stopping sales until EPA approves a compliant label. 2. in practice corporations (including Monsanto and its parent company Bayer) routinely apply to add labels. 3
Majority opinion logically leads to "if EPA approves, I'm good to sell even if today I find my product will cause immediate death."
Minority opinion is more like: "Cool, okay, I get you can't change labels without EPA approval... but that doesn't mean you could go without a legally required label, you just need EPA to approve a compliant label before you resume/keep selling." Put differently, EPA approved label is A requirement, but not itself a "conclusive" proof of all legal requirements.
Their label was approved by the EPA. Monsanto and majority argued that's effectively proof positive they complied. This is basically "EPA approved my label... so I am good on all EPA regs, and since state can't add to EPA regs, I am good to and must go with the EPA approved label." This is effectively the chain that gets them to the express pre-emption logic. The minority, Roc,
As usual, grizy and I are on the same wavelength about the law. 😀
Minority opinion is more like: "Cool, okay, I get you can't change labels without EPA approval... but that doesn't mean you could go without a legally required label, you just need EPA to approve a compliant label before you resume/keep selling." Put differently, EPA approved label is A requirement, but not itself a "conclusive" proof of all legal requirements.
The science on if glyphosate causes cancer is mixed. The EPA currently says it does not. Why would the EPA approve a label it believes is false?
