You GO supreme court!

Supreme court finds in favor of amputee

This pianist went in for a migraine and came out without an arm thanks to Wyeth's decision not to warn doctors that the delivery method of their drug might cause gangrene.

What I find truly reprehensible is the Bush administration's support of Wyeth's claim that the FDA approved label was 'good enough' and shields the company from any and all liability no matter what is later discovered about a product!

The siding with Wyeth was a departure from virtually every other administration's position in such cases.

I think we will be absolutely flabbergasted when we finally find out all that the Bush administration tried to get away with.

edit to add:

using this for further conversation about Supreme court rulings in general.

They were trying to make the government's regulatory agencies (not just the FDA) mean nothing to consumers while protecting companies from liabillity.

Now, if the court had found in favor of Wyeth, and that they acted appropriately because the FDA signed off on it, then the government (read: taxpayer) would be on the hook for the liability.

Socialize the costs - privatize the profits.  That's what the radical 'free market' guys are all about.

Yay supreme court!  Was it a unanimous decision?

i just read that part --- 3 dissented.  i'm guessing Scalia, Thomas and Roberts.  Will go read to find out.

and you would be right!

Yet another reason why we needed President Obama at this critical moment in our history.

While we're on the topic of Supreme Court rulings - am so hoping California's supreme court steps up and re-instates the right to same-sex marriage today.

i wish the supreme court would tell the legislatures that they need to provide for civil partnerships (without regard to gender) and to leave religions to make their own choices about marriages that they will or will not recognize.

that way everyone would get a civil partnership license and file taxes under civil partnership.  and anyone who goes to church can keep their own definitions of marriage.

Scalia, Roberts and Thomas are the corporatists.  They ALWAYS side with big business.

I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Homer: Which would put more green in the blue, the blue being my pants!

Read an article today about another lawsuit filed by civil union couples in Mass. Evidently they were denied federal rights (like soc sec survivor benefits, federal pensions, income tax filing status) because of the 'Defense of Marriage Act' signed into law by President Clinton.

How can this even be deemed to be consitutional, let alone ethical??

Still more proof that most of the country has no idea what this debate is about. I know far too many people who believe civil unions should be legalized but not called marriage, but have no idea how many rights couples lose because of the distinction.

Agree Nomo. All marriages should be treated as civil unions and named such by the government. People want to use the word 'marriage' to delineate, that's a personal, cultural choice - not a reason to deny people rights.

Original Post by dnrothx:

I think government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

Homer: Which would put more green in the blue, the blue being my pants!

 I dig how you are always about the bottom line, Doc. :D

No rights should be linked to whether or not a person is married, whether they be health benefits, tax benefits, or whatever else.

Agree, as long as the rate married couples pay is what everybody pays, not the other way 'round. :D

Original Post by kathygator:

Agree, as long as the rate married couples pay is what everybody pays, not the other way 'round. :D

 Sing it, sister.

Original Post by kathygator:

and you would be right!

Yet another reason why we needed President Obama at this critical moment in our history.

While we're on the topic of Supreme Court rulings - am so hoping California's supreme court steps up and re-instates the right to same-sex marriage today.

I hope they don't, it's really the wrong way to go about this. If this is the way we want to live, then we might as well select a king and hope he allows us to nominate our feudal lords. Government of the majority, for the minority, by the judges? Ya... pass.

I think Prop 8 was reprehensible, but that's no excuse to abuse an end-run on the legislative process.

The ironic thing is that I've met a lot of well-meaning but horribly uninformed people that would like to see the electoral college removed so that the majority can elect a president, but they don't approve of majority rule when it's applied to something they dislike like banning gay marriage.

People... they're a silly species.

Original Post by ignayshus:

The ironic thing is that I've met a lot of well-meaning but horribly uninformed people that would like to see the electoral college removed so that the majority can elect a president, but they don't approve of majority rule when it's applied to something they dislike like banning gay marriage.

Probably the most thought-provoking thing I've ever seen you post. 

Would agree with you Ig, except that this is an issue about civil rights. Just because the majority votes against a civil right, doesn't make the majority constitutionally correct.

hmmm..... i wonder if that means they wyeth facility near me will disappear.

Original Post by girlfighting27:

hmmm..... i wonder if that means they wyeth facility near me will disappear.

 It'd be their own darned fault.

This ruling would not effect that as much as the Pfizer acquisition might. It's only 6 million. A drop in the bucket for either company.

Original Post by kathygator:

Would agree with you Ig, except that this is an issue about civil rights. Just because the majority votes against a civil right, doesn't make the majority constitutionally correct.

 

 as much as I hate to quote myself - wish to add that at the minimum, the 18,000 marriages performed when it was legal, need to be legalized and upheld.

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by ignayshus:

The ironic thing is that I've met a lot of well-meaning but horribly uninformed people that would like to see the electoral college removed so that the majority can elect a president, but they don't approve of majority rule when it's applied to something they dislike like banning gay marriage.

Probably the most thought-provoking thing I've ever seen you post. 

 I suppose if the majority of people in Mississippi vote for a constitutional amendment to declare that black people and white people can't marry each other, that would be proper too.  Because the people voted.  And pesky things like civil rights should be determined by majority vote, not the constitution.  ya

(or voted to declare that a marriage is defined as being between a white man and a white woman or between a black man and a black woman if you want to be nit-picky)

Original Post by ignayshus:

Government of the majority, for the minority, by the judges? Ya... pass.

 You might want to look into moving to another country since what you've just described is how our founding fathers set up our government to work.