Difference between revisions of "US/Supreme Court"
m ("Official acts") |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|start=1789 | |start=1789 | ||
|country=United States | |country=United States | ||
| + | |description=The highest court of the [[US]], appointed by congress and their president, and therefore also influenced and controlled by elements of the corrupt [[US/DS]]. | ||
|leaders=Chief Justice of the United States | |leaders=Chief Justice of the United States | ||
|headquarters=Washington D.C. | |headquarters=Washington D.C. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
==Immunity for manufacturers of generic drugs== | ==Immunity for manufacturers of generic drugs== | ||
In a 5-4 vote on July 7, 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that Karen Bartlett had no right to sue Mutual Pharma, after a drug they made, the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, caused her to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis as a side effect. A lower court awarded her $21 million in compensation, stating that “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to [[FDA]]-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce." [[Whiteout Press]] summarised the implications of this ruling as follows "In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives."<ref>July 7, 2013[http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/ Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits]</ref> | In a 5-4 vote on July 7, 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that Karen Bartlett had no right to sue Mutual Pharma, after a drug they made, the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, caused her to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis as a side effect. A lower court awarded her $21 million in compensation, stating that “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to [[FDA]]-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce." [[Whiteout Press]] summarised the implications of this ruling as follows "In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives."<ref>July 7, 2013[http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/ Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =="Official Acts"== | ||
| + | A 2024 ruling requested by [[Donald Trump]] resulted in a ruling that made a distinction between "official acts" and "not official acts" by a president, in deciding ''when'' a US President should personally be prosecuted. | ||
| + | The ruling made 3 new "acts" to be classified<ref>https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered</ref>; | ||
| + | Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which “immunity must be absolute” | ||
| + | Official actions “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity | ||
| + | Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity | ||
| + | |||
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:01, 2 July 2024
 US/Supreme Court  (Supreme court)      | |
|---|---|
 A mock up of how the group might look given clearer display of corporate loyalties | |
 | |
| Formation | 1789 |
| Headquarters | Washington D.C. |
| Leader | Chief Justice of the United States |
| Type | legal |
| Interest of | Linda Greenhouse |
| The highest court of the US, appointed by congress and their president, and therefore also influenced and controlled by elements of the corrupt US/DS. | |
The US supreme court is the highest ranking court in the US.
Rulings
In June 2013 the court confirmed a federal appeals court ruling about Donald Rumsfeld by claiming that be cannot be held liable for any illegal actions of his subordinates. He was being sued for personally authorising "enhanced interrogation" techniques.[1][2]
Immunity for manufacturers of generic drugs
In a 5-4 vote on July 7, 2013, the US Supreme Court ruled that Karen Bartlett had no right to sue Mutual Pharma, after a drug they made, the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, caused her to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis as a side effect. A lower court awarded her $21 million in compensation, stating that “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce." Whiteout Press summarised the implications of this ruling as follows "In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives."[3]
"Official Acts"
A 2024 ruling requested by Donald Trump resulted in a ruling that made a distinction between "official acts" and "not official acts" by a president, in deciding when a US President should personally be prosecuted. The ruling made 3 new "acts" to be classified[4];
Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which “immunity must be absolute” Official actions “within the outer perimeter” of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity
References
- ↑ www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/supreme-court-donald-rumsfeld_n_3415124.html
- ↑ http://rt.com/usa/supreme-rumsfeld-vance-court-493/
- ↑ July 7, 2013Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits
- ↑ https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-mean-for-trump-6-questions-answered
