Justice Department appeals Texas abortion pill ruling

[EasyHawk]

 

[franklinman]

Americans should get ready for a bunch more sh**ty rulings from Kacsmaryk. As I recall he struggled to get approved by a Republican controlled Senate. He is going to be a one judge wrecking ball down in Amarillo. Every sh**ty, Christian Sharia Law goof ball case is going to be filed in his court. The guy hates gay people, he's proven that already. Now he's showing us that he thinks women need their hands held when they decide on their health care, and he's decided that one judge can overrule the FDA when they use science to approve a drug. If I am a pharmaceutical company I am looking around at who to donate to in 2024.
FYI, Kacsmaryk is in his 40s, so he'll be making sh**ty rulings for decades.

Never ever trust a CON judge to make the right decisions, their brains are not wired for that.

 

[ft254]

I posted that because you're right, the FDA spends years approving drugs. While it's true that many, many drugs go from prescription to OTC, I'm pretty sure the timing of how the FDA handled this drug is political.

Finance, why do you always enter debates with losing arguments? Jesus. A judge with an agenda questions the safety of a drug that's been in use for 20(+) years with data documenting it's safety record.

Judges and brain dead legislators need to stay out of the health care arena. Health care decisions belong between the mother and her physician.

 

[lucas80]

1. When a statute is passed is entirely irrelevant, unless you don’t like, say, 42 usc 1981-88.
2. As to the historical references in dobbs (and fwiw, nys):
A. It is not exactly novel jurisprudence that if you insist on unstated/atextual substantive due process rights, they are defined by referenced by our history and tradition, which happens to be an Anglo common law history, and
B. In both cases, the court was quite transparent that all history is not created equal. So while the older stuff may provide context, it is the contemporaneous history that is of greatest weight when trying to discern meaning.

Others have denigrated lawyers/judges making scientific assessments. Fair enough. We don’t have a monopoly on intelligence. And frankly, I agree that the at the substantive decision made by the agency here is at least strong enough to warrant some sort of deference, whether that’s under chevron or some other standard.

But, we lawyers are actually not too bad at process. Honestly, it may be the only thing we’re good at. And that’s important - very important actually - if unelected and politically unaccountable people are going to be given significant decision making power with the force of law behind it. And let’s be honest, there’s at least a little weirdness to the process here. I actually have a huge degree of tolerance for decisions made by good process.

3 try using phrases like “Christo fascist” a little less often. It’s a tell not only as to basic bias, but also for latent religious bigotry.

Charitable and magnanimous of you to admit that lawyers don't have a monopoly on intelligence.
You remind me of Kirk and Brian Ferentz lecturing Iowa fans about their process, and how we just don't get how much process goes into an offense, and we don't understand that process doesn't always result in points.
Scientists have a process towards their science. Doctors have a process to medicine. I'll give those folks a bit more deference when it comes to the stuff they know about, versus processing their way through it without the actual core knowledge of the subject.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Susan Collins in a rare moment of courage voted against Kacsmaryk, and warned that he would be able to restrict his extremism from his rulings. I think Manchin voted for this POS. He was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.
https://www.newsweek.com/susan-collins-dire-warning-about-matthew-kacsmaryk-proven-true-1793280

 

[ft254]

View embedded media

Aha! Cue her intuition and investigative skills when questioning the Supreme Court candidates and their honesty on Roe. The Orange Turd says he will stack the court with anti-abortionists. Nah. They said precedent rules.