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.
I guess it wasn’t about states rights, guys.
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.
Removed by mod
Multiple chicks at the same time. I get Mormonism.
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.
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.
Hilariously I am watching this video about that very topic right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1OkK7P4bng
That was indeed the joke.
Indubitably!
State’s Rights means slavery. That’s all it ever meant.
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.)
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.
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.
Mostly yes, but let’s just say I think I understand Cherokee leaders which supported the Confederacy.
This will eventually extend to birth control.
Just you wait.
Supreme court: Imaginary babies are still babies
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.
Keep your voice down. You’re giving the conservatives an erection.
And there’s a million things I haven’t banned.
Just you wait, just youuu waaait.
Yes it will and nobody will tell the court to stop.
Dems need to get off their asses and make roe a federal law.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Abortion is a woman’s god-given right.
Why has no one argued that rules against abortion infringe on religious liberty? The Bible contains directions for a priest to perform an abortion. In any case, someone could simply claim the law stops them from practicing their chosen faith.
The satanic temple has. Those folks are out there doing the lord’s work, ironically
Also ironically (given the current state of christianity) the Satanic church is the only church that is actually accepting of all people and whose love for all people is unconditional. (Yes I do belong myself). I guess I’m a bit prejudiced. But - not against my fellow man at all.
Fellow satanist! Or whatever we call ourselves actually 🐐
I know, it sounds weird to say, “hey there fellow Satanist!” I just call myself a BAP (born again Pagan) because “pagan” I think is more palatable to people than “satanist,” they think we run around with knives trying to stab nuns and orphans.
The appeals in the two major abortion cases Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade were thought by some to have been taken up prematurely. There were a number of cases that came before those that were honing in on the issue from a gender discrimination standpoint. RBG is one who thought the cases were premature. For example, she had successfully argued that a disability benefit law granting survivorship benefits only to widows was illegally discriminatory against men. She had planned to do the same thing in a challenge to an abortion statute, and thought the Court would strike it down on grounds that it forced only women to carry a child to term after which only the woman had a legal duty to raise and care for the child. Before the Court could consider the argument, abortion statutes were struck down on based on penumbral reasoning, privacy grounds.
I think some groups have, I know there are religions where abortion is very much a human right and they are trying to sue their state goverments, but it won’t do any good. We are in the grip of fascism, people - and that can’t be overcome by law suits.
Because it’s a dumb line of argument. No one in the process should give a fuck what any religious texts say one way or another and it’s not a can of worms that should be opened just because it might be convenient in this case.
Your mistake is thinking that this position is one of ignorance. They hate women, plain and simple. It was never about a tumor that happens to turn into a human if you leave it alone long enough.
I love this description. I know some tumors in their thirties+ that never became human. Most of them are conservatives.
Oh I totally get that. I even wrote an editorial about the “women hating” so called “justices” of the Supreme court, and it didn’t go over very well here in women-hating Utah. I agree with you on that completely.
Yeah bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. This is the government tyranny that we’re theoretically allowed to have guns to prevent.
I do agree that one’s bodily autonomy is nobody else’s business. I don’t think guns will help with government tyranny, they’re more likely to get you locked up and not able to accomplish what you hoped. And clearly in Utah voting doesn’t work either, because only republicans are allowed on the ticket here - you can register as democrat here, but you won’t receive a ballot and there won’t be any candidates to vote for.
Have some sources on this? I’m interested
You expect me to back up my wild crazy assertions with actual sources? : / How unAmerican! Actually all I have are my own lived experiences here in Utah. But you can read about Utah’s “supermajority” on the web - though not much will be said about any democratic leanings, which actually are the leanings of most of the people in the general population here.
Wtf are you talking about? Have you heard of prison? Have you heard of health mandates? Bodily autonomy is not a good argument. Family autonomy is a good argument; legislatures have no legitimate reason to make such highly intimate, family-planning decisions for the public at large or for women only, especially.
I believe that all people have the right to bodily autonomy, and if one is married then family autonomy does make sense as well. I do not believe any legislature has a legitimate reason to make healthcare decisions for any person or family.
There’s no redeemable legal right to “bodily autonomy.” Abortion was protected by the Constitution only under an implied privacy rubric. I understand what you’re saying and I agree wholeheartedly, it’s just the law doesn’t recognize mere bodily autonomy as something that’s protected. The protections for this stuff are rooted in privacy, due process.
I get flamed everytime I bring this up, but the sovereign has a right to perpetuate itself. In other words, part of the constitutional compact–the trade off between the people the new federation, the consent of the people to give away certain natural law freedoms in exchange for our great experiment in government by the people–is that the federation has a mandate to preserve it’s continued existence.
So, hypothetically, think of the plot of the movie Outbreak: a viral pathogen so deadly and so out of control that the entire country might be deceased within weeks if the spread is not halted, and so the government deploys strategic bombing against its own cities. The Supreme Court has always upheld reasonable, good faith vaccine mandates, quarantines, military drafts, limitations on habeas corpus, travel restrictions, and many many varieties of forced medical procedures, not to mention all the regulatory action on food and drugs, that are certainly less intrusive but potentially no less matter of life and death, such as bans on experimental medication and procedures.
Are not seatbelts and drunk driving laws restrictions on bodily autonomy? I mentioned prison and habeas corpus, but the whole thing there, and especially the Fourth and Eighth Amendments pretty obviously limits bodily autonomy, you know, if you get sentenced to prison, aside from habeas corpus, the right to bodily autonomy is massively limited and virtually everyone is fine with that.
All I’m saying is that bodily autonomy is a crap argument, it’s obviously not something that’s legally sacrosanct, and it’s obviously something that yields to the most mundane of reasons, such as the little kid, seven or eleven years old or something, that was placed under custodial arrest for public urination. I mean if the law allows your right to bodily autonomy to break for public urination, do you ever have a redeemable right of bodily autonomy? How many people lost their bodily autonomy for decades for some weed?
Well in my view, seatbelts and drunk driving laws are mandates for helping protect and safeguard bodily autonomy (of others if not yourself). And yes federal laws do compromise bodily autonomy, but such measures have to be in place when someone’s autonomy threatens the safety of other people.
This is just my opinion, but I think we do have an inalienable right to bodily autonomy. But in a world with other people around we can’t truly have total autonomy all the time. So I get the point you’re making in that regard. The law must inhibit behaviors that are indecent or harmful to other people.
However in the case of abortion rights, I think the current laws restrict access to necessary healthcare, and one’s healthcare choices are the most autonomous of all personal choices. No one can force you to go seek medical care, but by the same token no one should be passing laws to make it impossible to seek such care.
You don’t think the right is inalienable if you’ve just listed two situations in which bodily autonomy is justifiably alienated, see?
You can absolutely forced to be vaccinated or quarantined by the government. No country I’m aware of has laws to the contrary. Even like, if you get hurt at work, the government can require you to have surgery if doing so would regain your functional capscity, contingent on future wage loss or medical treatment benefits.
Sounds good to me.
Also to protect our marijuana\opium fields and colored LGBTQZN (n stands for non-carbon) genetically augmented catgirl\catboy\catbeing\catthing spouses from government overreach with assault rifles, machine guns, howitzers and MRLS`s.
Ah, well, not everybody is a libertarian.
I used to be anti-drug use in every way. Now I’m looking for a field of marijuana opoid poppies to go run into and frolic in, like Laurel Ingalls, and then fall face down in and hopefully live in the rest of my life…
Well, we only have one life, so why not. I personally think of women more than of intoxication in that regard.
Well as you say we only have one life, so why not? Whatever intoxicates you, who can blame you for needing it and smothering yourself with it in today’s world.
THANK YOU. This is the kind of outrage this deserves. WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Thank you for acknowledging it! And understanding it. If we don’t feel this kind of outrage over this, then I’m afraid we’re doomed to keep having it heaped on us forever. “What the Fuck” should be what we’re asking all these people, and protesting with signs saying it in front of their homes.
I agree. There are no words in elvish, entish or tongues of men, for this treachery.
And there should be! By Garweyn! Or something in the elvish tongue to that effect.
Mifepristone and other abortion drugs aren’t going anywhere. The FDA is being challenged that it didn’t go through its own normal process as it relaxed the rules on prescribing and dispensing them, that’s it. If SCOTUS says that the FDA didn’t then the drugs will remain legal but go back to being somewhat harder to get…until the FDA does follow it’s own rules.
It’s a stupid waste of time but its not the world ending problem that its being made out to be.
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.
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.
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.
Not just FDA, all regulating bodies.
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
For real.
I’d pay a dollar to see that!
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.
That is because the conservative majority are a bunch of hypocritical lying liars.
Conservatives aren’t bound by the need to make sense or be consistent.
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.
The constitution says nothing about this. Which means any ruling is judicial overstep
That would mean Federal Agencies would be beyond Judicial review. You sure that’s what you want?
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.
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:
- You don’t understand the process.
- 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.
could be fun
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks? We’re talking about the commerce clause, not third grade civics.
Well that fucking stupid. Osha bad because regulation bad.
Wtf kinda shit do you eat in the morning? Is it lead?
I mean the goal of OSHA is decent, whatever my views are on implementation.
That is literally their entire purpose
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.
Guys. This commenter sounds Libertarian-esque to me. In this case, individual bodily autonomy, Libertarians are on our side.
Some the other ideas however . . .
I’m a super liberal libertarian. Anticorp, IP is theft. We should use regs to dismantle corps, not build them.
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.
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.
The FDA exercised its authority to regulati mifepristone already.
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.
Fuck the FDA.
I would if I could, son. I would if I could.
deleted by creator
No, I’m calling you out for choosing to care about human rights when it suits you.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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
patientsvictims.
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.
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.
To be fair, abortion should be covered by the 9th amendment. There shouldn’t be a need for extra laws to cover it.
A lot of things fall in that category tho.
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!
go buy plan b while you can guys
How long does it last?
Mifeprestone has a shelf life of 5 years.
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.
Very funny and accurate comment, Twink Freud.
Repeat after me: “Demok-crazy”
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 .
One of the justices already got caught saying that when this was all getting started.
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.
I suspect the Court is politically savvy enough to avoid making mifepristone illegal right before the election. They’ll make a soft open-ended decision that leaves it unrestricted and come back to it in a few years, then make it illegal.
Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades? The newest chucklefucks appointed to SCOTUS don’t give two shits about appearances and will do whatever they want at any time.
They care a lot about appearances, what they don’t care about is actual popular opinion or democracy.
If they cared about appearances they’d adopt a code of ethics.
They did though, right?
One that has no mechanisms of enforcement, which makes it exclusively about appearances.
I think you have a good point though: we shouldn’t be surprised when they make another egregious ruling.
Believe me now?
That’s a lot of trust.
youre more optimistic than me. to me, they pull an unpopular move in a time when trump isn’t likely to win, wait four years, until a non-Trump conservative gets the nomination - win.
or they do it and trump wins anyway- win.
Optimistic? I think a favorable ruling on this issue will be weaponized to deflate anti-Trump voters. “See? You were worried about nothing, the Supreme Court is still a legitimate institution.”
I suspect the Court is politically savvy enough to avoid making mifepristone illegal right before the election.
That question isn’t before the court and making mifepristone illegal isn’t even a potential outcome of this case.
God whatever, they won’t restrict it nationwide either. I’m almost certain they won’t do anything controversial that close to the election.
Oh it’s quite possible that they’ll rule the FDA didn’t follow their process and return some restrictions. This court does care about optics but not to the point that they’ll change rulings over it. If that were true then Roe wouldn’t have been overturned.
Overturning Roe wasn’t close to an upcoming election! They underestimated how long voter’s memories would be, they’ll be very careful this time. Especially because this is Trump’s last stand.
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.
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.
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?
Re read what I said. My point is that Chevron is inappropriate when applied in criminal matters, as opposed to civil matters.
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?
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.
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.
That’s not how the FBI works. They enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch.
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.
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.
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/federal-bureau-of-investigation
So is anyone gonna organize smuggling of mifepristone before they ban it or what?
I’m sure you’d like to know, officer. /s
🐷🚔
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.
Bold of you to assume the supreme court acts in good faith at all
By all fucking means, do it, fash.
This lying & fuckery combined with the shit show that just occurred in Texas will give us a Federal trifecta in 2025 & then we will can start impeaching & incarcerating these corrupt & unqualified “justices”.
Polling has been proven to be complete garbage since 2019. The GOP have caught the car & they are about to get pulled under the political tire.
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?
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.
Yo and fuck Andrew Jackson.
