31–40 of 691 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Force? Edit: "Force to trust"? Because everyone answering didn't read ops comment.
If your boss tells you you'll lose your job if you don't have sex with him, and you quit to avoid that, would you disagree with the statement that you were forced to quit?
[flagged]
Force? Edit: "Force to trust"? Because everyone answering didn't read ops comment.
Or pick your favourite country; policies requiring arbitrary vaccination were quite common.
>The court on a 5-4 vote ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release the Sackler family members from legal claims made by opioid victims. As part of the deal, the family, which controlled the company, had agreed to pay $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases. Is this actually a positive outcom…
It depends on what your personal views are here. If you wanted the outcome of the case to be at least some money going towards opioid treatment, then this decision could jeopardize that outcome. However, if you thought that the Sackler family being able to escape any personal liability despite the myriad of evidence of many of their involvement in stoking the opioid epidemic— and they still got to keep a very sizeabl…
For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision. But one with Justices in the majority who were appointed by Biden, Trump, Bush 43, and Bush 41, and in the minority who were appointed by Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. It was Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas in the majority and Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh in the minority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Positive outcome. They earned hundreds of billions from their actions which resulted in the deaths of thousands. Giving them permanent immunity was insane.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Thank you. For my purpose as a reader it is editorial incompetence that the article neither provided that link, nor the name of the case to make it easy to lookup.
They do a good job of linking to or posting quality articles.
From a libertarian point of view, mood- and mind-altering substance use should be the citizen's choice, but for this to not result in an epidemic of addiction, it would require a well-educated public who understands that whatever short-term apparent benefit a drug (including alcohol and nicotine and caffeine) delivers, there's always a tax that must be paid afterwards, and use must be kept below the addictive threshold, meaning if you start needing more of the drug to get the same effect, the only rational thing to do is to stop using the drug until your tolerance goes back to zero.
This of couse goes against consumer society norms, where the concept of 'less is more' is almost a heresy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Positive outcome. They earned hundreds of billions from their actions which resulted in the deaths of thousands. Giving them permanent immunity was insane.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
> In a 5-to-4 decision, written by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a majority of the justices held that the federal bankruptcy code does not authorize a liability shield for third parties in bankruptcy agreements. Justice Gorsuch was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision. But one with Justices in the majority who were appointed by Biden, Trump, Bush 43, and Bush 41, and in the minority who were appointed by Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. It was Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas in the majority and Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh in the minority.
Thank you. For my purpose as a reader it is editorial incompetence that the article neither provided that link, nor the name of the case to make it easy to lookup.
It's really painful when you've got coverage of state court cases where you have neither the case name nor the court it was filed in nor the docket nor any document nor anything that would let you figure any of this out.