Supreme Court to decide whether to restrict abortion drug nationwide

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

The case concerns the drug mifepristone that — when coupled with another drug — is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.

The decision means the conservative-leaning court will again wade into the abortion debate after overturning Roe v. Wade last year, altering the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and triggering more than half the states to outlaw or severely restrict the procedure.

mindbleach,

This court is illegitimate.

The correct response regardless of outcome is to ignore them, at all levels.

tygerprints,

Absolutely right and it's what I've been counseling people here to do - ignore them. We can find ways to get this drug to women if it means we have to do it through the black market or other means. The supreme court can fuck themselves into a tiny hole in the ground for all I care, they DO NOT NOW AND NEVER WILL HAVE AUTHORITY OVER OTHER HUMAN BEINGS IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, NOT NOW AND NOT EVER!!!!

mindbleach,

Hell, I mean authorities themselves should ignore these bastards. ‘Oh, but precedent…’ fuck that noise, we know this is nonsense. State courts should say this is garbage. City courts should say this is garbage. Employees, bosses, and shareholders alike should say this is garbage. No anarchist bent is required to say: we choose to do this; we can choose something else.

We are already in a crisis of institutions. Stop doing what’s normal, and just do what’s right.

tygerprints,

I totally agree. I don't think it's anarchist to question this (or any) groups' so called "moral authority" over the rest of us. I think its necessary. These people are supposed to represent US, the little people of the country, not their own moral ideas of what is right and wrong - they're supposed to represent US. Not anything else!! And most people disagree totally with their overturning of Roe Vs. Wade, which was sick and immoral as anything could ever be.

SaltySalamander,
SaltySalamander avatar

Once that cat's well and truly out of the bag, there will be states deciding that any decision by the SC is null and void. No more same-sex marriage folks. Bye bye Brown v. Board of Education, welcome back segregation! No more guaranteed lawyer if you can't afford one. This isn't something you should be cheerleading.

tygerprints,

I'm cheerleading it and I'm funding it on a large scale. No one will ever again dare to take same-sex marriage choice away, we will simply gas chamber anybody who tries. And we need to get rid of all these fascists once and for all, with extreme prejudice. I'm cheerleading this all the way to the bloody end.

ObviouslyNotBanana,
@ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world avatar

I guess it wasn’t about states rights, guys.

Pat_Riot,
@Pat_Riot@lemmy.today avatar

State’s Rights means slavery. That’s all it ever meant.

rottingleaf,

CSA states’ declarations of secession, if I remember correctly, used the word “slaveholding” rather often to characterize CSA’s members.

There are some other differences in direction, so back then it really was to some extent about states’ rights, just as important as slavery or maybe a bit less. Which doesn’t change the point.

(Also - I was a stupid kid at some point with sympathies to confederates. Eh.)

Pat_Riot,
@Pat_Riot@lemmy.today avatar

Like conservatives today, most of the men who fought and died for the Confederate states, were not a part of the ruling class they supported. They heard what they wanted to hear. They were convinced that the federal government was trying to take away their rights. They gave their own lives so a few rich men might continue to live by rich fucker rules. Men who owned other men. Men who didn’t give a damn about the common folk they sent to fight. It’s only ever been about the rights of the Few, the landowning slavers.

rottingleaf,

Mostly yes, but let’s just say I think I understand Cherokee leaders which supported the Confederacy.

tygerprints,

That's the reality of the world we live in. It's the whole point of George Orwell's "animal farm." The animals revolt and take over the farm for themselves, believing they can live in a more just world by equally dividing up the spoils and rights to everything among themselves. In the end though, one group of pigs believe they deserve a bigger slice of the pie than anyone else and commit violence to make sure they get it. It's inevitable. The few upper earners of our nation will always dominate and always get their way. There is no solution to it. That's life. And it always will be.

WhatAmLemmy, (edited )

Lol. They’ve only ever used “states rights” like “small gubberment”; as a means to impose their will on the largest scale they currently hold power. As soon as they gain the upper hand and can impose their will via a higher government (or regulator) — such as imposing their will on local governments via state law, or imposing their will on states via federal law (or the EPA) — they don’t give it a second thought.

This is how fascists and authoritarians operate. They lie, because words mean nothing to them but a means to achieve authoritarian rule… They don’t stop at the national level either.

ObviouslyNotBanana,
@ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world avatar

That was indeed the joke.

WhatAmLemmy,

Indubitably!

tygerprints,

In Utah, our legislature is so committed to rejecting the will of large government and their attempts to control what happens. And yet, the Utah legislature itself controls every single thing that happens in this state, and so long as everyone agrees with their ultra-conservative point of view, then everything is great in their view of things. So in the end, we end up being slaves to THEIR beliefs anyway, and the victim of their own form of big government interfering in everything in our lives here all the time.

tastysnacks,

Multiple chicks at the same time. I get Mormonism.

HerbalGamer,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Hilariously I am watching this video about that very topic right now: www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OkK7P4bng

rottingleaf,

It’s year 2023 AD. You can have multiple chicks at the same time without Mormonism, if you can attract them, of course, and, eh, deliver on the attraction. And if you need official status, then contracts are a thing ; it may not be called “marriage” officially, but it’ll work.

tygerprints,

Exactly. That's what really makes a cult a "cult." The males get to sleep with as many underage females as they like. It's the same with every cult that's ever existed. If the sex part was removed, no man would even be interested in them.

Rapidcreek,

They brought upon themselves an unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states.

snooggums,
snooggums avatar

That is because the conservative majority are a bunch of hypocritical lying liars.

YoBuckStopsHere,
@YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world avatar

To which it isn’t authorized to rule because that falls to the FDA. They are religious zealots and not qualified to rule on medicine.

prole,

Yeah, people don’t really understand the precedent that would be set here.

Chevron deference is extremely important, and the GOP is openly working to “dismantle the administrative state,” to use their own words.

Ranvier, (edited )

If this is actually successful, expect republicans to begin going after more fda approvals in the courts for things like hiv medications or vaccines. Anything that appeals to their religious zealot base, doesn’t matter how many people they harm.

Edit: Didn’t think of this originally, and not strictly related to abortion access debate, but the ruling as it stands could allow for pharmaceutical companies to sue each other and try to overturn the approvals of competitors’ drugs. It’s just such an unfathomably bad ruling on soooooo many levels.

prole,

Not just FDA, all regulating bodies.

Ranvier,

You’re right, the more I think about this ruling the worse it gets. The fifth circuit court should be fired…

Out of a canon and into the sun

JustZ,

For real.

tygerprints,

I'd pay a dollar to see that!

pulaskiwasright,

Conservatives aren’t bound by the need to make sense or be consistent.

tygerprints,

And yet most everyone amongst us, you know us lowly civilians, actually want women to have abortion rights. The conservatives who represent us are not in any hurry to actually represent us at all, and seem only interested in doing the diametrically opposite of what people who elect them want them to be doing. Maybe it's time to stop electing self-serving bastards - just a thought.

negativeyoda,

Some trolling individual is going to use this precident to ban Viagra

RubberElectrons,
@RubberElectrons@lemmy.world avatar

You know what, I fucking hope so. Rile everyone up and keep reminding them that the crooked court is responsible for this shit. They’re supposed to ensure our constitutional rights are unabridged, not express into law the opinion of the minority.

FluffyPotato,

I’m not American so maybe someone can explain this, the way your supreme court works sounds insane to me. Like what power does the US supreme court have that they can just ban drugs? Also what is stopping the states from just ignoring them on decisions like this?

Vent, (edited )

Legislative branch writes the laws. Judicial branch interprets them. Executive branch executes/enforces them.

SCOTUS’s power comes from judicial review and precedent. They can’t make arbitrary decisions on arbitrary things. Someone has to bring a case through a ton of appeals and different courts, then SCOTUS can rule on their interpretation of the law and write one or more essays explaining why and the nuances of their decisions. Those decisions are then examples/precedents that are followed by lower courts in future cases, until someone goes through the process again and SCOTUS decides to take the case and change the precedent, which is even more difficult and rare.

In this case, it sounds like they’re arguing over if the FDA did their legally required due diligence. If not, then their approval is null and void, so the drug is banned.

A bunch of things stop states from ignoring their decisions. In this case, any company making the drug is not going to value it as worth the risk so it probably won’t even make it to court again.

Some federal laws are tied to federal funding. For example, the 21 drinking age is tied to funding for roads. States can choose to set the age to 18, but they lose out on funding.

States can decide to just ignore federal law and get away with it, so long as it’s not something the federal government is willing to fight for. For example, states legalize Marijuana essentially by deciding to just ignore the federal ban. The federal government doesn’t care enough to send in their own anti-weed police or to pass legislation to force states to ban it again.

It even applies at the federal level. The executive branch can decide to just ignore SCOTUS and do their own thing. For example, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Native American’s rights but Andrew Jackson ignored it and did the Trail of Tears anyway (he kicked tons of natives off their land with no shortage of human suffering and death along the way). The Legislative branch can fight against the Executive branch by withholding funding, but the Judicial branch doesn’t have any such “stick”.

It’s rare that situations happen where branches fight against each other or states defy the federal government, but it’s not unheaed of. It’s all part of the checks and balances. In any case, it needs to stay within some realm of reasonableness in order to get buy-in from other government officials and the populace as a whole.

JustZ,

Yo and fuck Andrew Jackson.

ZombieTheZombieCat,

I thought their whole reason behind repealing Roe v. Wade was about “letting the states decide.” Of course that was total bullshit, otherwise this wouldn’t even be a question.

BigMacHole,

The Supreme Court, NOT medical professionals, will get to decide what life saving medications YOU get to take! It’s a good thing they aren’t corrupt and we’re appointed on merit without lying!

sagrotan,
@sagrotan@lemmy.world avatar

Repeat after me: “Demok-crazy”

MaxVoltage,
@MaxVoltage@lemmy.world avatar

go buy plan b while you can guys

feminalpanda,

How long does it last?

ChairmanMeow,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Mifeprestone has a shelf life of 5 years.

reverendsteveii,

now in fairness, it’s because these people who are not at all trained in medicine or experimental design think that the people whose training and careers are exclusively in medicine and experimental design may have done it wrong.

part of the republican strategy for getting their wildly unpopular agenda through nationwide has been making sure that anyone anywhere is allowed to make a legally-enforcable decision IF they agree with it, but ensuring that no amount of expertise or personal stake qualifies you to make the opposite decision. Multiple doctors agree that your pregnancy is non-viable? Doesn’t matter, a city councilperson whose highest education is a GED has decided that doesn’t qualify you for an exception to their abortion laws. The opinion of several doctors, the patient and the patient’s parents is that the patient is trans? Not good enough, a complete stranger who knows neither you or anything that they’re talking about said “no”. You want books in your kids’ school library? Only if they’re approved by the Karenest Karen to ever Karen. It’s designed to be a ratchet effect. Anyone can turn the dial to the right, no one can turn it back to the left, they call it “freedom” and the absolute monsters they’re appealing to love it because the only freedoms they care about are the freedom to do what they want and the freedom to force everyone else to do what they want.

JustZ,

Very funny and accurate comment, Twink Freud.

IHadTwoCows,

What authority does the Constitution give to dispense medical advice and regulate medical treatment?

PsychedSy, (edited )

Ask the FDA. What authority does it have to regulate most things.

Edit: so, they don’t have authority to regulate women’s abortion choices, but do have the authority to regulate every other part of your medical decision?

Fuck that. You want an abortion? Get one. A joint? Go nuts. Experimental cancer meds? I wish you well.

Your medical choices should be between you and your doctor, not you, your doctor and a legislature.

Something_Complex,

Well that fucking stupid. Osha bad because regulation bad.

Wtf kinda shit do you eat in the morning? Is it lead?

PsychedSy,

I mean the goal of OSHA is decent, whatever my views are on implementation.

NoSpiritAnimal,
@NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world avatar

The Executive Branch is empowered to carry out the law as interpreted by the Judicial Branch and mandated by the Legislative Branch.

The FDA is assigned by the executive, empowered by congress, and subject to legal oversight of the courts.

There are many laws that give the FDA authority, for instance the Food Safety Act of 1906.

There is nothing that gives the supreme court the power to review medication approved by medical professionals.

JustZ,

The Supreme Court was never going to a review the medication, it was going to review the approval process, Make sure it complied with procedural and substitutive due process as required by the Constitution.

PsychedSy,

Thanks? We’re talking about the commerce clause, not third grade civics.

Daxtron2,

That is literally their entire purpose

PsychedSy,

I understand that. I was criticizing their view knowing they’d apply it to abortion, but nothing else.

Lemmings want the fed all up in their shit, except when they don’t.

wildginger,

The FDA is not in the constitution.

It explicitly has authority from the government to regulate things.

A panel of judges assigned in duty by the constitution is not given its authority from the same body as the FDA.

If you do not understand why youre comparing apples and lemons, you should leave the conversations to the adults.

Cethin,

I agree with most of your comment, but regulation to ensure safety also has its place. That said, I mostly agree it should still be available, with a warning about safety.

PsychedSy,

I’m not really commenting on that, to be honest. I’m not a huge fan of many regulations, but I only get worked up about the ones that fuck us.

Roe v Wade had a standard that was applied nowhere else and it’s frustrating nobody thought to back it up with law.

Cethin,

To be fair, abortion should be covered by the 9th amendment. There shouldn’t be a need for extra laws to cover it.

PsychedSy,

A lot of things fall in that category tho.

loopedcandle,

Guys. This commenter sounds Libertarian-esque to me. In this case, individual bodily autonomy, Libertarians are on our side.

Some the other ideas however . . .

PsychedSy,

I’m a super liberal libertarian. Anticorp, IP is theft. We should use regs to dismantle corps, not build them.

loopedcandle,

Yeah. And when it comes to this one issue, Libertarians and Liberals are pretty much on the same page. Maybe different reasons, but the same page.

The government can fuck off and has no say in my medical . . . well anything.

PsychedSy,

Fuck yes we are. Christians showed up at our last libertarian convention to tell others to support freedom. Libertarian kids took up armed security for the protests. We won in Kansas.

Socsa,

The FDA exercised its authority to regulati mifepristone already.

PsychedSy,

Fuck the FDA.

tygerprints,

I would if I could, son. I would if I could.

tygerprints,

It absolutely did, and I trust the FDA much more than I trust a bunch of prejudicial bigots in black robes. I'm just funny that way.

IHadTwoCows,

Did you actually use my question to excoriate the FDA?

Here’s news, pal: regulations are written in blood becuase corporations will cheerfully and willingly kill for profit.

The power corporations have to willfully and cheerfully kill for profit comes from libertarian clowns and their arrogant assholerie.

PsychedSy,

No, I’m calling you out for choosing to care about human rights when it suits you.

IHadTwoCows,

As opposed to when?

PsychedSy,

Well, the medical rights you imagine support abortion should also support a lot of other medical rights. I chose the FDA because they do things like tell cancer patients they can’t try experimental medications.

IHadTwoCows,

“can’t try”, or “doesn’t work”?

…because there are boatloads of “alternative” doctors and “medical” distributors in my area

PsychedSy,

These were terminal cancer patients and oncologist recommended, but it looks like we’ve made some effort to fix it. They have a “Right to Try” act program now, so that’s neat.

I think quacks should be able to be sued into oblivion by their patients victims.

KingThrillgore,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/031cad32-96f4-4e10-a6f4-6510fba0f5b0.jpeg

Laughbone,

Capitalism needs meat for the grinder I guess? Can’t wait to see the court restrict this then let those Purdue pharma fuck heads off the hook for unleashing a plague on humanity .

Codilingus,

One of the justices already got caught saying that when this was all getting started.

SharkEatingBreakfast,
@SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz avatar

This will eventually extend to birth control.

Just you wait.

killeronthecorner,
@killeronthecorner@lemmy.world avatar

Supreme court: Imaginary babies are still babies

Wahots,
@Wahots@pawb.social avatar

STDs are going to go through the roof. They already are, in part due to deteriorating public infrastructure and shittier sex ed. But this is going to make the quality of life for Americans go down. And increase DOA babies due to congenital syphilis.

Burn_The_Right,

Keep your voice down. You’re giving the conservatives an erection.

Daxtron2,

And there’s a million things I haven’t banned.

Just you wait, just youuu waaait.

KingThrillgore,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

Yes it will and nobody will tell the court to stop.

SupraMario,

Dems need to get off their asses and make roe a federal law.

afraid_of_zombies,

The constitution says nothing about this. Which means any ruling is judicial overstep

JustZ,

That’s not at all how the law works. There are millions of federal statutes and regulations, all of which need interpretation.

Also, the Constitution does talk about health and welfare and interstate commerce powers.

Brokkr,

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutuonality of laws passed by the legislature. The court has no power to make laws.

Making a decision about the legality of medication is judicial overreach. That power is granted to congress alone, unless they have delegated some of that power to the executive branch (such as through the FDA).

JustZ,

That’s a rightwing lie about what the Court is supposed to do. The high court may rule on appeals from the state’s highest court’s decision and any federal court’s decision. Virtually all modern First Amendment freedom is ”courtmade law,” likewise for the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Fourteenth. Miranda rights are “court made,” exclusionary rule.

Conservatives love it too. They love them some court made “government contractor defense,” in which the originalst textualist Justoce Scalia extended the federal government’s sovereign immunity to defense contractors based on no statute or constitution.

Scotus isn’t being called to pass upon the legality of medication, it is being called to pass upon the legality of the federal substantive and procedural due process given to stakeholders in the administrative rulemaking process. It’s very much a constitutional issue, insomuch as due process, notice, and comment, are prerequisites to Constitutional due process. Sort of seems like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Brokkr,

Originally, I thought you were a troll, but I think you are sincere. It seems that we largely agree on what the court is supposed to do. However, I think you may have misunderstood my statements and the role of the Supreme Court.

Granted, I’m not a Con Law scholar, so I might be wrong. So if you have a hobbyist interest like I do, I’d suggest two podcasts: Opening Arguments, and “What Can Trump Teach Us About Con Law”. Both are well researched, entertaining, and informative.

DemBoSain,
@DemBoSain@midwest.social avatar

The Supreme Court has no authority to “rule” on the constitutionality of laws. They took that power for themselves (Marbury v Madison) and nobody called them on it. They’ve now decided that the constitution isn’t comprehensive and they must also consider the customs and traditions of the nation (and even before) when they come to a decision. Dangerous times.

Buelldozer,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Making a decision about the legality of medication is judicial overreach.

That isn’t whats happening. What’s going on is that the FDA is being challenged that it didn’t follow it’s own process on approving the relaxation of rules regarding the prescribing and dispensing of Mifepristone. If SCOTUS rules that they didn’t follow their process mifepristone will still be available but will return to being harder to get…at least until it DOES follow its own process.

Buelldozer,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

That would mean Federal Agencies would be beyond Judicial review. You sure that’s what you want?

HerbalGamer,
@HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works avatar

could be fun

Adalast,

Not beyond judicial review, but not under the purview of the SCOTUS. This is the kind of shit that District Courts and US Courts of Appeals are for. SCOTUS is only supposed to determine if the rulings of lower courts, legislation, or presidential actions violate any provisions of the Constitution or existing statutes. They aren’t supposed to legislate from the bench, they aren’t supposed to pass judgment on cases, and they aren’t supposed to meddle in the affairs of the other branches as long as they are coloring inside the lines. Their only purview is the legality of laws and rulings. Nothing more. As much as I was happy for the Roe v. Wade ruling, it was supposed to be kicked back to the legislature to form appropriate laws surrounding the matter, not to rest the legality on the president that was set. This is fundamentally judicial overreach, as is about 90% of everything they have done this last couple years.

Buelldozer, (edited )
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Not beyond judicial review, but not under the purview of the SCOTUS.

They aren’t under the purview of SCOTUS. The lower courts are.

Their only purview is the legality of laws and rulings.

That’s exactly what they’re doing here. A lower court ruled that the FDA didn’t follow it’s own process when relaxing restrictions around the prescribing and dispensing of mifepristone. The loser appealed and the next highest court ruled that the FDA did follow its own process. Repeat appeals until you reach SCOTUS who is now ruling on which of the lower courts is correct. That’s it.

SCOTUS is NOT ruling on whether mifepristone is legal or approved for use, it’s ruling on whether a lower court followed the law when reaching its decision and whether or not that decision is consistent with the Constitution. In practical terms whichever way SCOTUS rules it’s those lower courts whose authority will be used to direct (or not) whatever the FDA does next.

This is fundamentally judicial overreach, as is about 90% of everything they have done this last couple years.

You see so much as “Judicial Overreach” for two reasons:

  1. You don’t understand the process.
  2. So much of what gets to court, including SCOTUS, these days are questions of Administrative Law because much of this country is being run by Administrative Law. Which is what this case is about.

Most of what is decried as “Judicial Overreach” should more correctly be called AGENCY Overreach but its being blamed on the Judiciary.

Like this case. The problem isn’t SCOTUS it’s the agency known as the FDA.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

So is anyone gonna organize smuggling of mifepristone before they ban it or what?

CADmonkey,

I’m sure you’d like to know, officer. /s

pinkdrunkenelephants,

🐷🚔

Buelldozer,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

It’s not going to be banned, that isn’t even a potential outcome of this case. The question of the drugs legality isn’t before the court, all that they’re deciding is whether or not the FDA followed its own process as it relaxed restrictions around prescribing and dispensing it. If SCOTUS rules that the FDA didn’t follow it’s process then mifepristone will still be legal just somewhat harder to get and use…until the FDA does follow it’s process for relaxing access.

It’s not great but its nowhere near the banning attempt that these headlines are making it out to be.

pinkdrunkenelephants,

Bold of you to assume the supreme court acts in good faith at all

prole,

Why even have regulating bodies? Chevron deference cannot go away. This is how the right continues to “dismantle the administrative state,” to use their own words.

This is real bad.

FireTower,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Chevron deference is problematic because it allows non elected officials to establish rules, in practice laws, with insufficient oversight.

Don’t get me wrong I like when the FDA limits how much rat poop can be in ceral. But it shouldn’t enable organizations to say something that had previously been known as lawful is now a felony, and to imprison citizens for that.

Chevron deference should be limited to fines on commercial businesses.

prole, (edited )

These corporations bake those fines into “the cost of doing business.” Fines aren’t effective on their own. Also, we need experts to be the ones who determine where the line is, before we can even talk about consequences for crossing it.

This country would descend into chaos within days if we didn’t have people who are career experts in their respective fields working in regulatory agencies.

No fucking shot should those people need to be elected, that’s absurd. We need people who have studied that shit and have an intimate knowledge of the subject matter informing our laws, not Joe Shmo that won a popularity contest because “he’s the kind of guy they’d like to have a beer with.” Even if they have the best intentions, it’s impossible to be an expert in everything.

Also, the heads of those agencies are politically appointed positions, and at least on a state level, they often turnover with each new administration. So it’s not completely disconnected from people who are elected.

Edit: dumb fuck libertarians ruining this country.

FireTower,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

The issue is that these agencies can have their heads appointed as a way of politically weaponizing them.

For example appointing a new FBI head who would lead to a new ruling that unborn fetuses are people who would be protected by homicide laws.

This skirts the legislative process to establish new laws. And aside from waiting until the next election the only recourse is commenting on the mater during a comment period.

prole,

That’s not how the FBI works. They enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch.

FireTower,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

And federal agencies interpret the laws under Chevron. They can redefine previously accepted interpretations to regulate new conduct.

Here’s a link to the federal register where you can comment on proposed reinterpretations of the suggested by the FBI.

federalregister.gov/…/federal-bureau-of-investiga…

dumpsterlid,

I know this isn’t the main point of this conversation but the idea that the FBI follows or has at any point since it’s inception followed the law in any meaningful sense is frankly hilarious.

The FBI does whatever the hell it wants.

JustZ, (edited )

Stfu. Honestly do you have like a baby’s understanding of government regulation? Do you think keeping the rat poop out of cereal and the other ten million regulations that keep you safe daily are possible without specialized bodies of administrative agencies regulating thousands of different industries, administering tens of thousands of specialty statutes? You cannot draw a line between “making things illegal that used to be perfectly legal” and keeping the rat poop out of food. Rat poop food was “perfectly legal” and still would be without a Chevron deference, we’d be sitting around waiting for Congress to act and meanwhile we’d all die of plague. What are you, a Libertarian, wants to die from plague?

FireTower,
@FireTower@lemmy.world avatar

Re read what I said. My point is that Chevron is inappropriate when applied in criminal matters, as opposed to civil matters.

JustZ,

I don’t see the distinction, in your post or in fact. Administrative action is neither criminal or civil, but regulatory. Through its enabling statute and it’s own regulations, an agency may avail itself to criminal or civil remedies. Only a prosecutor can prosecute criminal charges in federal court.

Why can Congress delegate “civil” but not “criminal” matters? It can either delegate or not.

Agency functions are rulemaking, adjudication, investigation, enforcement. I think pretty much every federal agency has some level of function for each, each with it’s own requirements for due process. Agencies aren’t neatly packaged. Got a couple examples of what you’re talking about criminal versus civil regulatory action?

roguetrick,

The entire situation is top down nonsense, so hopefully the court sees it as such. Regulatory changes made in good faith is exactly what the FDA is empowered by Congress to do. It's up to Congress to decide if they're acting outside of their scope, not the courts.

JustZ,

Tripartite governance? Checks and balances? It’s up to the Congress and the Courts. Congress can pass a new Statute, the Court can rule on the existing ones.

roguetrick,

There's just no grounds here. If it was bad faith, outside the power delegated, against the Constitution, sure. If it's within their power and following their rules (good faith), the court has zero place.

The idea that they're acting in bad faith because the court interprets the evidence differently than the agency put together to interpret the evidence is a ridiculous argument.

JustZ,

They aren’t interpreting the same evidence. The court isn’t ruling on the science.

The issue is stated as:

Issue: (1) Whether the Alliance’s challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 mifepristone approval is timely; and (2) whether FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone under 21 C.F.R. 314.500, which applies only to drugs that “treat[ ] serious or life-threatening illnesses,” and FDA’s subsequent approval of generic mifepristone were unlawful.

Buelldozer, (edited )
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

The court isn’t ruling on the science.

Correct, they are ruling on the matter of whether or not the FDA followed its own processes as it relaxed restrictions around the prescribing, dispensing, and use of mifepristone.

FTFA:

“Though the justices on Wednesday agreed to consider an appeals court decision that restricted access to the drug, they declined a separate appeal by the abortion foes to consider if the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug was unlawful.”

The question of mifepristone’s legality isn’t before the court and it becoming illegal or banned isn’t even a remotely possible outcome.

Edit: You can read it for yourself direct from SCOTUS here. The Alliance petition for a writ of certiorari on 23-395 was denied.

BoastfulDaedra,

Not that I’m a fan of SCOTUS, but torches and pitchforks have always been such a reliable medium for civil political debate!

Buelldozer,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

If it’s within their power and following their rules (good faith)

That’s the issue before SCOTUS! It’s being claimed that the FDA didn’t follow its own procedure when relaxing the prescription and dispensing rules for mifepristone.

JustZ,

Right, it’s a bullshit, bad faith lawsuit, funded by far right extremists. Twenty years is too late. Statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, laches. Fifth Circuit is on crack.

Buelldozer,
@Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

Twenty years is too late.

Yes, which is why I think SCOTUS didn’t grant a writ of Certiorari for it. The argument about mifepristone’s FDA approval is dead.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •