news SCOTUS upholds mifepristone access unanimously, rule plaintiffs lack standing

[Bears01]

45 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

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

 

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.

You make good points, but: compared to actual rich people (not us poors or middle class), judges aren’t paid THAT well. Even on the Supreme Court. They make about $300k a year. A lot for you and me, yes, but judges are regularly leaving the bench to make more $$ because, according to them, $300k a year is “underpaid”. They still need those fat donors. 
 

And you are right, they have overextended themselves on abortion, and if they strike this down, that’ll continue even more. When big pharma tells people to back off, no matter who they are, they usually always do. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Bears01

[Vermillion]

 

[Bears01]

@Espresso

[Vermillion]

1 hour ago, Bears01 said:

@Espresso

Done, thanks  

[Bears01]

5 minutes ago, Espresso said:

Done, thanks  

Alito is AWFUL. Legit awful

 

I know there’s more court battles to come regarding this ruling, but: like I said, when big pharma says NO, the powers that be usually listen 

[If U Seek Amy]

When even Amy Coney Barrett, the abortion hating religious crazy says shitty ruling, you messed up

[VOSS]

Alito was seething when he wrote that dissent

I wonder why it took them so long… I feel like the liberal justices wanted to order them to dismiss the case for lack of standing and Thomas/Alito wanted the reversion to pre-2016 rules while the 5th circuit appeal played out

And the rest eventually compromised by staying the entire decision until the appeal

Alito kinda took a swipe at Barrett

[VOSS]

[Vermillion]

My understanding is the stay holds nationwide until SCOTUS takes the case up, regardless of the appeals court.

[VOSS]

21 hours ago, Espresso said:

My understanding is the stay holds nationwide until SCOTUS takes the case up, regardless of the appeals court.

Yeah whatever they decide this is ending up at SCOTUS. I’m interested to see what mental gymnastics these judges will use though.

[Sannie]

I think it is very odd the court can rule on cases regarding medical science like medications.

[Communion]

This is the attitude we actually need:

 

 

[Aston Martin]

2 minutes ago, Communion said:

This is the attitude we actually need:

 

 

Agreed that this is the correct attitude to the potential ban. My fear though is that red states would also start ignoring Obergefell v. Hodges, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Lawrence v. Texas, ect. I hope that the fear of losing their own power (and big pharma's money actually doing some good for once) would lead to the SC upholding FDA approval, but I don't trust them to make the right decision at all. It's scary stuff.

[Vermillion]

13 hours ago, Communion said:

This is the attitude we actually need:

 

 

My cynicism’s kicking into high gear. I’m not a lawyer or constitutional scholar but it’s one thing to threaten and another entirely to put it into practice. Our bar’s so low though that I’ll take it.

[VOSS]

Quote

On the eve of this month’s off-year elections, the top lawyers in three states threw something of a Hail Mary pass: They went to the courtroom of one of the most notorious Trump judges in the country and asked to join the lawsuit that could revoke FDA approval of the abortion pill, mifepristone. That suit was filed almost a year ago, and we’re currently waiting to see if the Supreme Court will take up the case on appeal. Experts agree that the anti-abortion doctors don’t have standing to sue, and many people think the court will agree to hear the case and then rule against the doctors.

 

That fact may explain why, on Friday, Nov. 3, the Republican attorneys general from Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho filed a motion to intervene in Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s court, claiming their states are also being injured by the approval of the abortion pill back in 2000. These Republican AGs are swooping in to join the case at the eleventh hour, and it certainly looks like they’re worried about SCOTUS ruling against the plaintiffs, doctors from the shadowy Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

 

Andrew Bailey of Missouri, Kris Kobach of Kansas, and Raúl Labrador of Idaho wrote in support of their motion that the Biden administration’s petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case “spends the brunt of its analysis attacking the private plaintiffs’ theories of standing.” But the group says they have their own standing claims—including that doctors are using “shield laws” to mail mifepristone to their residents, which harms their ability to enforce abortion restrictions—and they want to join the case at this late date merely for expediency’s sake. “Presenting all theories of standing at once ensures that this Court (or appellate courts) can more cleanly get to the merits of this incredibly important issue,” they write. “And intervention is certainly more efficient than the States bringing a separate lawsuit, the only alternative to intervention.”

Source

[Vermillion]

OP updated. We all saw this coming. Now we wait and predict. 

 

My current prediction’s on a reset back to 2000, eliminating the late 2010’s expansions of the drug but not eliminating its access entirely.

[Vermillion]

 

[Vermillion]

 

[VOSS]

Sounds to me like they're gonna dismiss for lack of standing

[Vermillion]

5 minutes ago, VOSS said:

Sounds to me like they're gonna dismiss for lack of standing

To that point

 

 

[Vermillion]

@VOSS

 

[VOSS]

9 minutes ago, Espresso said:

@VOSS

 

Sounds about right

[VOSS]

Hawley's wife did not come off as particularly capable to me. But given the "facts" at play here maybe she did the best she could

[GhostBox]

So we are guaranteed to see this at the Supreme Court again basically. Short term win for women 

[Vermillion]

4 minutes ago, GhostBox said:

So we are guaranteed to see this at the Supreme Court again basically. Short term win for women 

Yep. Trying to check the legal pundits for when and how…