Difference between revisions of "US/Supreme Court"

From Wikispooks
< US
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "=Washington, D.C." to "=Washington D.C.")
(Unstub)
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
|logo_width=330px
 
|logo_width=330px
 
|image=United States Supreme Court.jpg
 
|image=United States Supreme Court.jpg
|image_width=270px
+
|image_width=400px
 +
|image_caption=A mock up of how the group might look given clearer display of corporate loyalties
 
|start=1789
 
|start=1789
 
|country=United States
 
|country=United States
Line 22: Line 23:
 
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>
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
{{stub}}
 

Revision as of 10:23, 6 July 2019

Group.png US/Supreme Court  
(CourtSourcewatch Spartacus WebsiteRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
United States Supreme Court.jpg
A mock up of how the group might look given clearer display of corporate loyalties
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Formation1789
HeadquartersWashington D.C.
LeaderChief Justice of the United States
Typelegal
Interest ofLinda Greenhouse

In June 2013 the US supreme 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]

Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.


References

  1. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/supreme-court-donald-rumsfeld_n_3415124.html
  2. http://rt.com/usa/supreme-rumsfeld-vance-court-493/
  3. July 7, 2013Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits