news SCOTUS upholds mifepristone access unanimously, rule plaintiffs lack standing

[Horizon Flame]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[Bears01]

39 minutes ago, Espresso said:

 

Big Pharma wants this ruling reversed=this ruling is getting reversed. 

[Bears01]

@Espresso update: 

 

So it’s now essentially gone from a horrid/terrible ruling to merely a pretty bad one. At least (for now) it can stay on the market 

 

However: I doubt big pharma is gonna let this stand. If there’s one thing in this country you don’t dare to cross, it’s big pharma 

 

[Vermillion]

This is getting less reporting, but apparently some loosened restrictions from the last few years after the original approval of the drugs were restricted in the judge's original ruling and with this stay those restrictions are allowed to stand

 

[VOSS]

The fifth circuit’s ruling is sufficiently batshit. They went through mental gymnastics to manufacture standing while adding that it would not apply to any other drug in any other situation and they refer to “unborn children” in the decision

[Vermillion]

9 minutes ago, VOSS said:

The fifth circuit’s ruling is sufficiently batshit. They went through mental gymnastics to manufacture standing while adding that it would not apply to any other drug in any other situation and they refer to “unborn children” in the decision

Of course they did.  

[Vermillion]

@VOSS So the DOJ apparently is seeking this emergency appeal because the compromise from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana allowed the original approval of the drug to stand, but not subsequent expansions including allowing non-doctors to prescribe and administer and drug and allowing mifepristone to be sent through the mail.

[VOSS]

22 minutes ago, Espresso said:

@VOSS So the DOJ apparently is seeking this emergency appeal because the compromise from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana allowed the original approval of the drug to stand, but not subsequent expansions including allowing non-doctors to prescribe and administer and drug and allowing mifepristone to be sent through the mail.

The fifth circuit judges know plaintiffs don’t have standing but they’re fedsoc hacks who have been trying to ban abortion for decades so I guess they jumped at the opportunity to let part of the ruling stand.

I’m guessing they’d like to try and impose a national ban through the court system but hopefully SCOTUS will shut them down. Roberts definitely won’t go for it so I guess it will depend on Kavanaugh.

[Vermillion]

54 minutes ago, VOSS said:

The fifth circuit judges know plaintiffs don’t have standing but they’re fedsoc hacks who have been trying to ban abortion for decades so I guess they jumped at the opportunity to let part of the ruling stand.

I’m guessing they’d like to try and impose a national ban through the court system but hopefully SCOTUS will shut them down. Roberts definitely won’t go for it so I guess it will depend on Kavanaugh.

Yeah, it'll come down to Kavanaugh. Little reassurance.

 

I mean the biggest deal in terms of expansion since the 2000 approval is from seven weeks to ten weeks of pregnancy. 

[Bears01]

@Espresso massive update: 

 

 

 

[karron0624]

On 4/7/2023 at 6:35 PM, Espresso said:

I'm reading speculation on Twitter that because this TX judge is infamous in the legal world and the ruling was anticipated, there were multiple others ready to pounce

This, multiple judge were ready with an oinion.

[Vermillion]

@Bears01 

 

Judge Thomas Rice:

[Vermillion]

The extension of the pause is suspect. 

 

Doing a 180 and now justifying forgetting about their states’ rights opinions from less than a year prior is clearly no cake-walk 

[VOSS]

9 minutes ago, Espresso said:

The extension of the pause is suspect. 

 

Doing a 180 and now justifying forgetting about their states’ rights opinions from less than a year prior is clearly no cake-walk 

The case at hand seems so cut and dry that it’s very concerning they’re extending it. I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes, they are clearly not in agreement about what should be done

[Vermillion]

1 hour ago, VOSS said:

The case at hand seems so cut and dry that it’s very concerning they’re extending it. I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes, they are clearly not in agreement about what should be done

I mean, you shouldn’t be surprised.

[Bears01]

21 minutes ago, Espresso said:

I mean, you shouldn’t be surprised.

I still don’t think they’ll go through with it. Big Pharma is involved and opposed, if there’s one thing you don’t cross in this country, it’s big pharma

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, VOSS said:

The case at hand seems so cut and dry that it’s very concerning they’re extending it. I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes, they are clearly not in agreement about what should be done

Or they’re pushing it towards the weekend when nobody watches the news because they know the decision will be unpopular. Waiting until after the prime time news cycle is over would be more strategic.

[VOSS]

56 minutes ago, Espresso said:

I mean, you shouldn’t be surprised.

 

34 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Or they’re pushing it towards the weekend when nobody watches the news because they know the decision will be unpopular. Waiting until after the prime time news cycle is over would be more strategic.

I actually am having a hard time imagining them doing anything but fully staying the district court decision. Let's say that Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett want to lift the SCOTUS stay and keep the restrictions the 5th circuit allowed while the case works its way through the lower courts. That would be giving credence to a standing argument that would upend the legal system in many ways, so they could really only do it if they tailor their opinion to only being applicable to abortion drugs, or something similar. Obviously Roberts would not go along with that, and I also can't see Kavanaugh doing it either after his concurrence in Dobbs just last year talking about how the court must be neutral towards abortion. I guess we shall see...

[ClashAndBurn]

1 hour ago, VOSS said:

 

I actually am having a hard time imagining them doing anything but fully staying the district court decision. Let's say that Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett want to lift the SCOTUS stay and keep the restrictions the 5th circuit allowed while the case works its way through the lower courts. That would be giving credence to a standing argument that would upend the legal system in many ways, so they could really only do it if they tailor their opinion to only being applicable to abortion drugs, or something similar. Obviously Roberts would not go along with that, and I also can't see Kavanaugh doing it either after his concurrence in Dobbs just last year talking about how the court must be neutral towards abortion. I guess we shall see...

Why would you believe this? It would be constituent with their stance on blowing up cabinet agencies. The EPA has been gutted through Court decisions, so there's no reason they wouldn't work to undermine the FDA.

[Bears01]

17 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Why would you believe this? It would be constituent with their stance on blowing up cabinet agencies. The EPA has been gutted through Court decisions, so there's no reason they wouldn't work to undermine the FDA.

I think (the main thing) that’s potentially  stopping them: big pharma opposes this rule. Even judges on the bench wouldn’t want to cross and piss off big pharma. They’re still corrupt and still get donors. 

[VOSS]

25 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Why would you believe this? It would be constituent with their stance on blowing up cabinet agencies. The EPA has been gutted through Court decisions, so there's no reason they wouldn't work to undermine the FDA.

I don't know how they would tailor an opinion that recognizes this sort of standing argument only in relation to the FDA

[ClashAndBurn]

Just now, VOSS said:

I don't know how they would tailor an opinion that recognizes this sort of standing argument only in relation to the FDA

This decision is specifically about nullifying the FDA's ability to declare drugs as safe for public usage...

 

12 minutes ago, Bears01 said:

I think (the main thing) that’s potentially  stopping them: big pharma opposes this rule. Even judges on the bench wouldn’t want to cross and piss off big pharma. They’re still corrupt and still get donors. 

I disagree. The fact that they're set for life with lifetime appointments that they can never be legitimately removed from without willingly stepping down means they're more or less immune to financial dissuasion. They're insulated on purpose, and they will still be handsomely funded regardless of how they rule with or without Big Pharma. Besides that, Big Pharma knows that they will need to not piss off the court so that in the future, when they want to further erode Government-provided health care, they'll need the justices on their side to continue further privatization of the system.

 

Striking down Medicare and Medicaid is the ultimate goal for conservatives. They know they've overextended themselves on abortion so they can't make those moves yet without the supermajorities that they would have had if Clinton had won the presidency in 2016. Thanks to Trump winning though, they got too greedy.