This potential decision would have the effect of a red-state federal judge ending reproductive freedom in every state throughout America, and ending the right of private companies to engage in interstate commerce selling the abortion pill.
On 3/9/2023 8:01 AM, S K wrote:
This potential decision would have the effect of a red-state federal judge ending reproductive freedom
in every state throughout America, and ending the right of private companies
to engage in interstate commerce selling the abortion pill.
The OP didn't specify what case but here is what I can figure out.
A case was filed in Federal Court in Amarillo Texas concerning the FDA's >approval of the pill used in medical abortion.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has been assigned the case. He is the only
Federal Judge in Amarillo and basically is assigned 100% of the cases
there. Assigning all cases filed in Amarillo to a judge who actually
sits in Amarillo could save ordinary litigants from traveling hundreds
of miles to a court hearing. Judge Kacsmaryk is a conservative so
people complain about forum shopping.
Of course both left and right employ tactics to get a judge of their
liking.
In San Francisco is an example where Presidents Trump and
George W. Bush had zero nominees to this division.
Here is a good artcle
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/05/forum-shopping-in-california/
extract:
There are other examples, of course. The New York Attorney General could
file strategic suits in Albany, the state capital. But it routinely
files in the Southern District of New York. By contrast, conservative >litigants challenge COVID restrictions and gun control laws in Albany.
There is a 50/50 shot at drawing a Republican-appointed judge. The
Maryland Attorney General could have sued Trump over the Emoluments
Clause in the Baltimore division of the District of Maryland, but he
chose the Greenbelt division. Lo and behold, all the judges in Greenbelt
are Democratic appointees. In New Jersey, the Attorney General recently
tried to transfer a Second Amendment from a Trump appointee to a more >favorable judge.
...
You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lotsAs an example, California controls the content of the windshield washer
of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.
...
If the judge decides against the pill, the government will appeal and
won't the judge's order have to be stayed until the appeal concludes, in
the absence of any showing of death or serious illness because of the >alleged, by then almost proven inferior approval process? AIUI, there
is no allegation that the drug is dangerous, only that the approval
process wasn't up to snuff***.
If you tell me that the ban won't be stayed during appeal, the
government has known about this case for months, they've known which
judge was to handle it and what his views on abortion are, for months. >Wouldn't they have started the re-review process months ago?
On 3/16/2023 7:39 AM, micky wrote:
...As an example, California controls the content of the windshield washer
You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lots
of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.
...
fluid in your car. Most of the premixed fluid sold in the US is illegal
to sell in about half of California. I found this out when I visited
family in Utah and my fluid froze solid.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
On 3/16/2023 7:39 AM, micky wrote:
...As an example, California controls the content of the windshield washer
You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lots >>> of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.
...
fluid in your car. Most of the premixed fluid sold in the US is illegal
to sell in about half of California. I found this out when I visited
family in Utah and my fluid froze solid.
Amazing. They have mountains in California too. Cold mountains too.
If the judge decides against the pill, the government will appeal and
won't the judge's order have to be stayed until the appeal concludes, in
the absence of any showing of death or serious illness because of the >alleged, by then almost proven inferior approval process? AIUI, there
is no allegation that the drug is dangerous, only that the approval
process wasn't up to snuff***.
To change the focus here a little bit, haven't the news media been
alarmist about this issue?
If the judge decides against the pill, the government will appeal and
won't the judge's order have to be stayed until the appeal concludes, in
the absence of any showing of death or serious illness because of the >alleged, by then almost proven inferior approval process? AIUI, there
is no allegation that the drug is dangerous, only that the approval
process wasn't up to snuff***.
During the time it takes for appeals, both of the possible failures of
the approval process can be cured, I would think.
The data and the process they used for the original approval can be >re-examined and re-done. I think they had more than enough data, but if
the allegation is that there was not enough data, now there are 20
years' more data, most of it computerized. All they would have to do
is look for every entry that uses the name of the drug and that same day
or within say 10 days after its first listed, see if there is a code for >death or hemorrhage or whatever other serious bad side effect it might
have or is known to have. (AIUI it's not known to have any worse than >discomfort and similar.) When they find examples of that, they can
check if the drug is considered the cause. That part may take a while,
but I hear there are very few such cases, and the vast majority would be >coincidences.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 344 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 61:45:59 |
Calls: | 7,535 |
Files: | 12,717 |
Messages: | 5,642,963 |