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
To be sure, Jackson's dissent spilled a lot of ink on the labeling requirement that I actually think she knows is a losing one.
I really think she would have been better off to lean harder into Bates and Riedel and just be like "per these guys... all Monsanto had to do was..." I think there is a far stronger case confining to that the state case was jury trialed and Monsanto waived the right to instruct the jury on "cost and benefit analysis" and telling the jury the failure to warn must be consistent with the EPA (this was in her footnotes... and frankly I think the most dispositive analysis of her entire dissent). The impossibility line on "you could always stop selling" got like a page... but to me that's more dispositive than the 18 pages she led her dissent with.
But she did lead with the 18 page analysis on labeling requirement. My guess is that she litigated what I suggested in chambers and tried to limit the ruling but when it became obvious the majority was going for the maximalist label=compliance, she went for the maximalist position in the other direction too.
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?
Then don't approve. Monsanto just had to show it tried to warn by applying to get that label and the dissent falls apart.
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?
If the science is mixed we should always err on the side of caution. The possibility that it harmed or harms people should always be far more important than corporate profits. It shouldn't ever come to this sort of litigation.
Oh, btw, I just don't really understand wtf Thomas' random note is saying. It reads like a dissent on the grounds that regulatory agencies don't get to make "supreme" laws that get to override state laws, especially in areas (such as health and safety) traditionally reserved to states.
Oh, btw, I just don't really understand wtf Thomas' random note is saying. It reads like a dissent on the grounds that regulatory agencies don't get to make "supreme" laws that get to override state laws, especially in areas (such as health and safety) traditionally reserved to states.
I'm pretty sure thomas just makes **** up to try to justify his right wing ideology.
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?
i have a giant tub of it i think it’s fine? it kills any plant it touches but afaik neutralizes when it hits the ground so if you don’t inhale or imbibe it you’re relatively safe for handling a powerful poison.
Thomas is the poster child for age limits for justices.
We knew he was trouble coming in. You couldn’t open a can of Pepsi in mixed company for two years because of this guy.
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,
I still don't get the minority argument. For 1, although they could stop sales why would they ever do that if they don't have to and they agree with the EPA? 2, they might apply to update labels but where was the requirement for them to do that here or face some penalty? 3, I don't agree this leads to "if EPA approves, I'm good to sell even if today I find my product will cause immediate death." I'm not an expert on EPA rules or the law, but I'm guessing that if the EPA approves something and the company later discovers it can kill people and just keeps selling it there is going to be a problem. In this case no one showed that Round Up creates some danger that Monsanto and the EPA missed.
I'm not an expert on EPA rules or the law, but I'm guessing that if the EPA approves something and the company later discovers it can kill people and just keeps selling it there is going to be a problem.
Only if there are viable theories of liability other than failure to warn.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...
Wat?
“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one president,” Roberts wrote in the Slaughter ruling.
“Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people,” wrote Roberts.
Well, duh...
“Today’s ruling makes it possible for presidents to fire watchdogs who won’t put politics over principle, and replace them with lapdogs,” she added.
I'm really surprised they didn't allow him to fire Cook, though.
Another one I'm shocked about.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme...
Alito doesn't understand that they actually did vote before election day. Well, he probably does but he's a trump bootlicker so he doesn't care.
Writing the dissent, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the decision could threaten election integrity and increase the risks of fraud. He said that the majority based its decision on a “flawed understanding of the election-day statutes.”
“Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days,” Alito added.
So once Congress creates an agency, the President can do basically anything they want in running it, no matter what Congress says..
unless maybe it’s the Fed.
7-2 against the administration in the birthright citizenship case with Alito and Thomas in dissent. About what I expected.
7-2 against the administration in the birthright citizenship case with Alito and Thomas in dissent. About what I expected.
Thomas is such a shithead.
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
This is a no-brainer. Thomas obviously has no brain.
Trump’s executive order was ******ed, just like him and those who voted for him.
7-2 against the administration in the birthright citizenship case with Alito and Thomas in dissent. About what I expected.
Wonderful
Maybe his treatment during his confirmation wasn't such a great idea? Turns out the dildo of consequences doesn't always come lubed.
Maybe his treatment during his confirmation wasn't such a great idea? Turns out the dildo of consequences doesn't always come lubed.
You are suggesting that Thomas bases his rulings/opinions on petty spite instead of some form of Constitutional logic/interpretative framework/moral code.
Ironically, or unironically, Trump operates in similar fashion.
Sounds like a couple of shitheads to me.
With people like Trump and Thomas in 2 of the most powerful positions in the land, I am more confident than ever that the US will be dead in 30 years.
6-3 for a decision that would easily be 9-0 in any other SC is a huge win with this current lineup.
You are suggesting that Thomas bases his rulings/opinions on petty spite instead of some form of Constitutional logic/interpretative framework/moral code.Ironically, or unironically, Trump operates in similar fashion.Sounds like a couple of shitheads to me.With people like Trump and Thomas in 2 of the most powerful positions in the land, I am more confident than ever that the U
I think you are being way too optimistic. Closer to 15 to 20 imho.
I'm 68. I need 30, please.
