Well, the idiot judge in Texas did it:
A federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary ruling invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, an unprecedented order that — if it stands through court challenges — could make it harder for patients to get abortions in states where abortion is legal, not just in those trying to restrict it.
But wait!
Less than an hour after Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling, another federal judge, in Washington State, issued a ruling that directly contradicted the Texas decision, ordering the F.D.A. to make no changes to the availability of mifepristone.
This should be fun. Both rulings will be appealed, so perhaps we'll have a standoff between the 5th and 9th Circuits, duking it out over whose judge gets to make temporary national policy.
In the meantime, has the FDA started up a re-approval process for mifepristone just in case it eventually loses in the Supreme Court? I haven't seen any reports of this, but it sure seems like a good idea.
UPDATE: The Washington ruling is not nationwide. It affects only the 17 states that are parties to the lawsuit in front of the judge.
I expect Robert Kennedy is singing "Is This the Way to Amarillo?" as he prepares his case to ask this Christianist loon judge to ban all the COVID vaccines.
Probably in the works right now. Is any vaccine safe?
Lets here it for the pro polio caucus!
Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-NYAH----nyah! You ca-n't get MEEeeee.
I already had it.
Not clear which judge you’re referring to in the last sentence, “…in front of the judge”.
the Defendant was the FDA. I don't see this as only applying to 17 states.
"...in Plaintiff States."
Maybe Newsom can find a judge to ban Viagra in Texas. (Yes, just Texas.)
Hey, if we're going to be that kind of country, can't let those assholes have all the fun.
I like how you think!
I was going to say, if a Federal judge can ban a drug 20 years after it was approved, then why can't viagra be banned as well in a similar lawsuit?
Is anybody really surprised? The only obstacles the plaintiffs had to overcome was lack of standing, inappropriate jurisdiction, facts which made it unlikely they would prevail at trial, and the lack of precedent. On the other hand, they had a judge that feels that God put him on the bench to punish sinners.
So everyone who said the judge wouldn't rule until after the Wisconsin judicial elections were spot on
You seem to be missing the larger problem here.
If this were to occur, there would not be a reapproval process to restart until board members were nominated and approved by the Senate. This judge is disregarding existing law in accepting the claim that the advisory board should have been political appointees.
The wider implication here is that every advisory board working with every federal agency would be tossed aside and hundreds of appointments and confirmations required.
The states were seeking to eliminate the REMS, AIUI. Not knowing the full particulars I think they were trying to maintain the loosened prescribing regulations that were in effect because of COVID. The ruling prevents the FDA from returning to the previous rules in the plaintiff states.
Judge ruled that plaintiffs had standing because tightening up the REMS requirements would result in increased costs because of an anticipated increase in the number of surgical abortions which would be performed, and issued the injunction for that reason.
I wish headline writers could get it right for once, but that would mean reading the whole fucking decision.
Pretty weak argument for standing. Increased costs? Since when has that ever been an impediment for drug approval? Anticipated increase in surgical abortions? Anticipated?
Of course, none of this matters if your "mind" is already made up. The slide towards being a banana republic continues.
I think rattius was referring to the Washington case, not the Texas case. IANAL, but increased costs would give somebody who incurred the increased costs standing.
Yes. That is correct, they were arguing that changes to the REMS program would increase their public health costs because more surgical abortions would be needed. The costs would be incurred directly by the states thus they have standing.
I honestly don't see the problem here. Pretty clearly, Federalist Society-approved jurists know a lot more about medical science than the deep state medical doctors and PhDs at the FDA.
Of course, this Supreme Court has already promulgated a ‘major questions doctrine’ which pretty much says that Federalist-approved judges can overrrule those pointy-headed ‘experts’ in any field - public health, economics, environmental sciences, toxicology, etc., etc. - with their ‘facts’ and ‘research’ and doctoral degrees. Yahoo! Or do I mean yahoos?
"This should be fun. Both rulings will be appealed, so perhaps we'll have a standoff between the 5th and 9th Circuits, duking it out over whose judge gets to make temporary national policy."
I know you are pro-choice and not a fan of Kacsmaryk’s, but this comes off as both-sidesy. Do you think it was wrong of the Washington judge to issue that ruling under the circumstances?
Why should anyone defer to one right wing, Christianist judge in Texas? Especially one who is as sloppy with applying the law and following precedent. Honestly, the man should be impeached and removed from office immediately.
do you think the left is morally required to bring a knife to a gun fight?
This is a great system. Only takes one Federal judge out of 870 to issue a ruling that affects, either the entire nation, or a substantial subset. And because the legal system is based on precedent (common law) and not rigor/logic (civil law) there is never any restrictions on what a judge can rule. He (or she) is merely setting a precedent.
Engineers are constrained by logic and facts about matter and energy. They are lowly schlubs under the jackboot of reality. The legal profession is much better because it deals with (imprecise*) language, so pretty much anything can be done. It's something to be proud of!
* strict scrutiny
reasonable doubt
compelling state interest
undue burden
"And because the legal system is based on precedent (common law) and not rigor/logic (civil law) there is never any restrictions on what a judge can rule."
That's absurdly wrong. Civil law systems are not based on "rigor/logic" any more (or less) than common law systems are. Civil law just narrows the ability of the judge to make decisions by expanding the role of bureaucracies.
Judges are hugely restricted on what they can rule by the appellate courts. That's the real problem here, though--whether or not the judges on the 5th Circuit do the right thing and vacate this farcical order by Kacsmaryk. FWIW, Kascmaryk's order does include a stay (albeit a cynically short one) of its own efficacy to give time for just such an appeal.
"Engineers are constrained by logic and facts about matter and energy. . . .The legal profession is much better because it deals with (imprecise*) language, so pretty much anything can be done."
Engineers are fortunate in that they work with materials that do not have their own volition, agency, or, largely speaking, morality. If you can think of a fair and workable way to adjudicate conflicts that avoids using "imprecise"* language that doesn't rely on asinine applications of "facts about matter and energy" to abstract concepts of justice, please do enlighten the rest of us, as you'll be doing humanity an enormous favor.
_________
*and, FWIW, all of the terms you list do have rather precise legal definitions. Those definitions may be context-dependent, but if your beef is that they can't be reduced down to equations, I'd hazard you're missing the point.
O/T: Fed wins the war against inflation:
https://cepr.net/its-a-passover-miracle-fed-wins-war-on-inflation/
The ideologues of anti-abortion are remarkable. In the end this will without doubt alarm and inflame counter-reaction against them, in the end I would estimate that even a supposed win in this court case (which seems likely to be far too radical even for your Supreme Court) will be a loss in the end as triggering political counter-reaction in favour of the Democrats. Something like this could even see the politics change for Supreme Court expansion, were the sitting court so imprudent and ideological as to issue supporting ruling.
It rather goes to show that in the USA you must stop using the word 'conservative" to refer to such people, the mindless usage of such by your journalists shows really impoverished political vocabulary. The actions like of this judge are not conservative in the least, they are radical reactionary, and should bare the label Reactionary.
Agree entirely. Especially about the use of the word, conservative. Reactionary is much more accurate.
Abortion rights are very unlikely to cause a significant change in the Democratic leadership’s thinking about the Supreme Court. They’re a surprisingly passive group who are highly resistant to change and generally believe that the most right wing elements of the Republican Party have a deep, unbreakable ideological connection with the American people.
They’ve had numerous opportunities to change the court but can’t bring themselves to take advantage of them.
Yep. That's been true since the New Deal.
Ha ha! He's older than the doctrine!
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/
"In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal. Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception."
If one judge, in a fit of ignorance, can block a previously approved medication, then what stops him or other equally ignorant judges from blocking things like COVID vaccines or chemotherapy drugs? The precedent would be breathtaking.
Never underestimate the power of ignorance! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Ah, but ‘fit’ implies something episodic. I suspect this judge suffers from chronic ignorance.
How about a single judicial district is created in California with a liberal judge. Every time some ridiculous action is brought in front of Kacsmaryk, the exact same, opposite action is brought in front of this judge. They can issue dueling opinions that effectively cancel each other out.
It’ll be like the Sneetches and the star on/star off machine. No nihilist right winger in this country who is interested in minority rule will ever agree to change the system. But if the system is made to work in an equally opposite reaction to what they like, maybe they can be convinced to play ball.
The Supreme Court will consistently uphold the right wing judge so all you’d be doing is making the Republicans jump through one extra hoop.
Perhaps true, but the problem that the SCOTUS hasn’t addressed the forum shopping issue, in large part because the rulings are going in a way they’re mostly satisfied with (or at least, a majority is satisfied with). Right now only the right is able to forum shop, and the results are devastating. Controlling the narrative at an early stage is important, so if we can forum shop as well, at least it may force the majority to acknowledge the idiocy of the forum shopping that’s going on.
That, at least, is a start. Will we get right wing rulings in the end - sure. But the ridiculous lawsuits that are seeking to create a shadow government in a single district in Texas will at least slow down, once they know that their chances of drawing a guaranteed win end.
And if not, we can at least get our own petty dictator on our side to rule in our favor reflexively. If the ruling is eventually reversed by SCOTUS, so be it. But at least is slows down some of the ridiculous policies of the right they way they’ve been able to shut down any manner of Democratic govenance from Texas