Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

here is the money shot and it was conveniently left out the article. The Court is only applying the federal law.
When federal law forbids an action required by state law, the state law is "without effect." Maryland [ Maryland v. Louisiana], supra, at 746. Because it was impossible for Mutual to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is preempted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce. Pp. 13-14.

How does this square with the Seventh Amendment?
Moreover, is the federal law actually in pursuance to the federal constitution. Specifically how; I reject, out of hand, precedent: argue from the Constitution itself.

Precedent does matter, Marbury v. Madison, and to ignore it would amount to playing games. The woman could not sue, because she had no standing.

Ah, standing another magical device used to deny rights. I especially love how the USSC castrated all the State Supreme Courts when in Hollingsworth they denied standing to the people [general citizenry] pushing the Prop 8 issue: by declaring that the people had no standing, they declared that the State Supreme Courts cannot certify standing in any sort of case whatsoever.

What's interesting is that standing didn't come about until, what, about 1920? Ah, let's just say 1913 so that we can celebrate it as a trifecta of evil for a century with the IRS and the Fed.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

A federal law that regulates the drugs that are sold among the several states is clearly covered by the commerce clause.

Therefore, preemption constitutionally applies.

The state cannot create regulations on interstate commerce that contradict federal regulation of that same commerce.

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
A federal law that regulates the drugs that are sold among the several states is clearly covered by the commerce clause.

Ah, but does it really say that? Take a look at that list again: the several states are right between foreign nations and Indian tribes. So then, what has to be asked is the following: would the government's assertion of commerce regulation powers [that they impose on the states] be considered valid in foreign nations? No, assertions of the level of control called regulation by our government upon a foreign country of the same magnitude that is imposed on the States would be an act of war and the attempted enforcing of those claims would be waging that war.

Therefore, preemption constitutionally applies.
The state cannot create regulations on interstate commerce that contradict federal regulation of that same commerce.

I think I preempted that argument, but feel free to point out where my reasoning is flawed.

thalidomide got a clean bill of health.

polio w/ sv-40 was’told we were safe.

drugs that govt clears all the time are pulled off the market. meloxicam was one.

this can’t make drug makers immune. they falsify studies in their favor andsuppress bad results, they could do this with impunity and get away with it b/c govt fda folks and drug companies have revolving door arrangements all the time, fox guarding the henhouse setup.

I was involved in a lengthy discussion on this particular issue as it relates to another matter that was in the news about 10-15 years ago. That issue was of interest to me because it had some potential implications for me professionally.

The case I'm talking about was an EPA case with an old General Electric plant in upstate New York that had been discharging PCBs into the Hudson River over the course of many years. What made that case similar to this one was the role of the Federal regulatory authority in the oversight of the plant ever since it was built. The EPA had regulatory authority over the discharge from the plant into the Hudson River, and for several decades there was never a problem for the plant because the PCBs weren't considered "toxic" by the EPA at the time. That all changed in the 1970s when the EPA issued a formal decision prohibiting the discharge of PCBs from industrial plants.

As a result of the EPA decision, GE announced that they would close the plant. The cost of modifying the plant to meet the EPA regulations was very high, so GE decided to move their production to a newer plant somewhere else. Seems like a simple case to me, on its face.

The problem was that the EPA came back decades later (the early 2000s, I believe) and ordered GE to take on the responsibility for a massive cleanup effort to remove the PCBs from the bed of the Hudson River that had been deposited there over the years. GE fought hard on this one, and their legal argument was sound: How could the EPA force GE to pay several billion dollars to clean up something that wasn't considered a pollutant at the time the plant was operating?

GE lost the case, and they're on the hook for the massive cleanup. At the time this was going on, I was involved in an advisory role on a real estate development project. I ended up advising against the project moving forward, and I used the EPA-GE case as the basis for my advice. I suggested to my client that General Electric would probably never build another plant in the U.S. because it was subject to a irrational regulatory process.

The basic question that applies in both cases is this: What is the purpose of even having a Federal regulatory authority if its findings are so unsound that they can be undone years later at great expense to the person or organization that is being regulated?

If drug companies falsify studies and suppress bad results, isn't this what the FDA is supposed to find out when they review the applications for approval?!

when you have people flip-flopping between rug companies and the fda, you don’t have confidence the fda is independent. and when is the last time any new drug story came out and discussed problems with trial studies, etc? never. the company’d sue whoever for slander/libel for something like that. haven’t you noticed on all the major news shows they almost never do any anti-drug stories,’much less any anti-how-did-this-drug-get-approval stories? hardly anyone knows of the incestuous relationship between fda scientists and drug companies. fda guys approve a new drug, leave the fda to go work for the company whose drug they approved, and conversely, some at a company work to get a drug approved, then after wind up getting a job at the fda, approving drugs, then after another drug they work on on the fda side is done, they go to another drug company.

Since our drug rules DO apply to all drugs shipped to this country for sale from foreign countries, and we are not at war over it, I would say your argument is fallacious.

I certainly could see a level of regulation going beyond what should be constitutionally permissible, although the supreme court has shown little interest in restricting the commerce clause no matter what the political makeup of the court has been. But I do believe that some regulation of drugs sold is within a reasonable interpretation of constitutional authority.

Although I might argue that the government really has no purpose in regulating what individuals can buy at all, and should only regulate the market to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make informed choices, and so that contracts (which sales are a type of) can be informed and enforced.

Since our drug rules DO apply to all drugs shipped to this country for sale from foreign countries, and we are not at war over it, I would say your argument is fallacious.

I said regulation of commerce, to the extent it's imposed on the states, not mere drug rules. To put it in perspective though, using the very argument you have, consider the Raich case where the FedGov declared it could regulate a private citizen growing something despite there being no interstate commerce for it to impact (the justification given in Wickard). — now apply that level of regulation to what goes on in foreign countries, because that is what we're talking about.

Virtually all regulation you commonly encounter today would have been considered unconstitutional two hundred years ago. (This is the result of the Wickard ruling, and those built upon it.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.