His opinion was truly appalling...wanted to totally revoke FDA approval of the drug...extremist doesn't half describe this sorry excuse for a "jurist".
I saw "2-1" and thought, "dissent", hey that's not so bad... then I read it's a dissent _because the decision doesn't go far enough_.
The lower courts need to be reined right in, or the Supreme Court is going to find itself acting as the head of every single agency in the government, and I don't think nine very old Ivy Leaguers are up to that.
The radical anti-abortion group "Students for Life" are doing just that, attacking contraception as "equivalent" to abortion...Griswold isn't sacrosanct by any means.
Questions: 1. I don't understand how the statute of limitations as it is mentioned in the decision actually applies?
2. I don't understand how a reasonable person could accept that doctors are harmed by having to practice medicine. Are they not harmed every day in that case? Could they not, by that crazy notion, theoretically sue any maker of any physical object or substance that harms their patients as also harming them?
I’m not quite sure I understand. If a claim isn’t raised within the statute of limitations, it cannot be challenged. The challengers gave two reasons why it shouldn’t apply here, and the majority said, “No, those aren’t reasons here for ignoring the statute of limitations,”
As to your second question, one of the fallout problems of this decision — as with Kacsmaryk’s before — is the breadth of the decision and its ramifications for the FDA and for standing even more broadly.
I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not, but there is no “standard” statute of limitations. Many laws and rules have different statutes of limitations or other time limits. Those various time limits also start running at different times, depending on what is being timed. Here it is quite complicated and, again, involved multiple arguments by the challengers for why it shouldn’t apply to their challenge, but, there also was a lot else going on in the decision, so I just wrote up a short paragraph explaining that, ultimately, they lost on both of those arguments, so the challenge was untimely. You can always look at the opinion for more.
I am certainly not a lawyer but thank you. While the statute of limitations seems to have "saved the day" on this decision, it seems more like an arbitrary application to get the outcome the court wanted. I don't know enough to be sure, but I can't find anything anywhere about a statute of limitations applying specifically to a government agency that ... Well, not certain what the FDA actually did wrong. Acted wrongly in a way that might cause hypothetical harm to a person at some point in the future? The whole opinion and underlying theory just seems nearly entirely Calvinballed.
I'm still a little unclear on next steps. Is it possible/probable that there would be a review by the full Court of Appeals? SCOTUS just take the case up themselves? Presume that in either scenario, SCOTUS would need to maintain the stay, otherwise, all H breaks loose.
Not to get overly dramatic, but this is the kind of case could have a significant impact on public perception of the court and could fray the authority of the court and ultimate rule of law. Preventing citizens in all 50 states from accessing approved/safe medications. Possibly state governments deciding to act in contradiction to a Fed court ruling.
SCOTUS does not need to take any action currently to maintain the stay.
As I state in the piece, SCOTUS has already ordered that its current stay remains in place until it rules on a cert petition. If it denies cert, the Supreme Court stay would terminate, allowing the Fifth Circuit ruling to go into effect. If it grants cert, the stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court issues its judgment. Hence, my discussion of how the Fifth Circuit's ruling could go into effect.
A party could, in theory, seeking en banc review at the Fifth Circuit, but I'm not sure who that benefits. The challengers don't want the SCOTUS stay to remain in effect, and DOJ wouldn't want an en banc Fifth Circuit ruling, I wouldn't think, because it's unlikely to be better than this from them.
And James Ho was the dissenting vote on the mifepristone ruling only because he thought it should be banned altogether. That’s how bad the fifth circuit court of appeals is.
The sheer cruelty of these people never ceases to amaze me.
They are trying to steal wombs the same way Failure 45 tried to steal America.
Judge Ho scares the crap out of me--he is a lock for the Supreme Court if the Republicans get yet another Supreme Court appointment opportunity.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
His opinion was truly appalling...wanted to totally revoke FDA approval of the drug...extremist doesn't half describe this sorry excuse for a "jurist".
I saw "2-1" and thought, "dissent", hey that's not so bad... then I read it's a dissent _because the decision doesn't go far enough_.
The lower courts need to be reined right in, or the Supreme Court is going to find itself acting as the head of every single agency in the government, and I don't think nine very old Ivy Leaguers are up to that.
I thought the same about the dissent. Should have known better. And Biden need to expand SCOTUS to 13. Like years ago.
Sooner or later, the GOP will follow the same playbook with birth control pills.
The radical anti-abortion group "Students for Life" are doing just that, attacking contraception as "equivalent" to abortion...Griswold isn't sacrosanct by any means.
Questions: 1. I don't understand how the statute of limitations as it is mentioned in the decision actually applies?
2. I don't understand how a reasonable person could accept that doctors are harmed by having to practice medicine. Are they not harmed every day in that case? Could they not, by that crazy notion, theoretically sue any maker of any physical object or substance that harms their patients as also harming them?
I’m not quite sure I understand. If a claim isn’t raised within the statute of limitations, it cannot be challenged. The challengers gave two reasons why it shouldn’t apply here, and the majority said, “No, those aren’t reasons here for ignoring the statute of limitations,”
As to your second question, one of the fallout problems of this decision — as with Kacsmaryk’s before — is the breadth of the decision and its ramifications for the FDA and for standing even more broadly.
I mean to ask what is the statute of limitations actually applied; is it the standard 5 years?
I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not, but there is no “standard” statute of limitations. Many laws and rules have different statutes of limitations or other time limits. Those various time limits also start running at different times, depending on what is being timed. Here it is quite complicated and, again, involved multiple arguments by the challengers for why it shouldn’t apply to their challenge, but, there also was a lot else going on in the decision, so I just wrote up a short paragraph explaining that, ultimately, they lost on both of those arguments, so the challenge was untimely. You can always look at the opinion for more.
I am certainly not a lawyer but thank you. While the statute of limitations seems to have "saved the day" on this decision, it seems more like an arbitrary application to get the outcome the court wanted. I don't know enough to be sure, but I can't find anything anywhere about a statute of limitations applying specifically to a government agency that ... Well, not certain what the FDA actually did wrong. Acted wrongly in a way that might cause hypothetical harm to a person at some point in the future? The whole opinion and underlying theory just seems nearly entirely Calvinballed.
sigh. The conservative judiciary seems hell bent on getting the Dems out to vote in DROVES in 2024
I'm still a little unclear on next steps. Is it possible/probable that there would be a review by the full Court of Appeals? SCOTUS just take the case up themselves? Presume that in either scenario, SCOTUS would need to maintain the stay, otherwise, all H breaks loose.
Not to get overly dramatic, but this is the kind of case could have a significant impact on public perception of the court and could fray the authority of the court and ultimate rule of law. Preventing citizens in all 50 states from accessing approved/safe medications. Possibly state governments deciding to act in contradiction to a Fed court ruling.
SCOTUS does not need to take any action currently to maintain the stay.
As I state in the piece, SCOTUS has already ordered that its current stay remains in place until it rules on a cert petition. If it denies cert, the Supreme Court stay would terminate, allowing the Fifth Circuit ruling to go into effect. If it grants cert, the stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court issues its judgment. Hence, my discussion of how the Fifth Circuit's ruling could go into effect.
A party could, in theory, seeking en banc review at the Fifth Circuit, but I'm not sure who that benefits. The challengers don't want the SCOTUS stay to remain in effect, and DOJ wouldn't want an en banc Fifth Circuit ruling, I wouldn't think, because it's unlikely to be better than this from them.
Thanks for your comment/reply. Got it - appreciate all the information.
And James Ho was the dissenting vote on the mifepristone ruling only because he thought it should be banned altogether. That’s how bad the fifth circuit court of appeals is.
Kind of early for all caps