Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#331

Post by legitster »

timemct wrote: post #321
legitster wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And honestly, while we like to lump them into "conservative" and "liberal" camps for simplicity, it's easy to get the correlation wrong. Like anyone else, their moral and legal philosophies might make them lean one way or another politically, not the other way around. Even for the most extremely political justices, to hear them expound on the legal principles of federalism or human rights is very fascinating. It's ea…

Save for at least one current sitting Justice: Amy Coney Barrett. They only had ~3 years of experience being a judge, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (2017–2020), before being nominated to the Supreme Court. Yes, they have experience in other law related roles, however your comment explicitly stated, "...fairly long careers as acting judges...," so that is what I'm speaking to.

Fair point!

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#332

Post by lupire »

pastor_bob wrote: post #320
shadowgovt wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, indubitably. It's easy to lose sight of (if one doesn't read the rulings regularly) the fact that SCOTUS's job is to come to rational and deliberate rulings grounded firmly in textual and common law dating back over a thousand years. Even when one doesn't agree with the conclusion, one rarely sees a ruling that isn't reasonable (though sometimes seeing the reason involves entertaining a fact pattern other than t…

Yet, during oral arguments they use some of the most juvenile thought experiments to prove their 'slippery slope' opinions

Nonsense.

Oral arguments are the lawyers making arguments. The justices ask questions and collect answers. Their proofs are in their opinions.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#333

Post by subsubzero »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #278
legitster wrote: post #179

I find the Supreme court decisions to be fascinating reads and overall much more interesting and complicated than most news services make them out to be.

Especially since this 5-4 decision didn't follow the "conservative" or "liberal" split at all.

How they voted(Name and the party of the administration that picked them):

Majority

Neil Gorsuch (Rep.)

Samuel A. Alito Jr (Rep)

Clarence Thomas (Rep)

Ketanji Brown Jackson (Dem)

Amy Coney Barrett (Rep)

=======

Minority

John G. Roberts(Rep)

Sonia Sotomeyer(Dem)

Elena Kagan(Dem)

Brent Kavanagh(Rep)

Whats really surprising is how Gorusch is quite the wildcard, he also authored the majority decision that said that 1/2 of Oklahoma belongs to Native Americans - https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules...

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#334

Post by loeg »

esd_g0d wrote: post #283
legitster wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Alexander had a very interesting writeup about his experiences: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/16/against-against-pseudo...

The US is the only place in the world AFAIK where you will get prescribed opioids for something as trivial as a wisdom tooth extraction (kind of like one of the cases cited). It is also the only place in the world AFAIK going through the opioid epidemic. Every other country in the world has got the problem of painkillers figured out. So it can't be that complicated.

Wisdom teeth extraction is far from trivial and opioids are a very reasonable prescription for pain from that surgery.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#335

Post by balozi »

legitster wrote: post #179

I find the Supreme court decisions to be fascinating reads and overall much more interesting and complicated than most news services make them out to be.

I totally agree. I have also been captivated by the oral arguments. To the extent that I find myself pre-researching some of the cases' background beforehand. Makes for compelling entertainment when you have a sense on why the justices approach questioning the way that they do. Beats any podcast I know.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#336

Post by stavros »

legitster wrote: post #179

I find the Supreme court decisions to be fascinating reads and overall much more interesting and complicated than most news services make them out to be.

They're also eminently readable, which (to me) shows the massive skill of whoever writes these. The fact that I, a layman, can easily understand them speaks to the quality of the writing.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#337

Post by ericmay »

richwater wrote: post #316
raizer88 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had lost a family member to drug abuse I would want justice (ie. jail time) not money.

justice from whom? Just because they got a prescription doesn't mean they lost complete body autonomy. The lack of personal responsibility regarding drugs around here is insane.

I'm not sure about the justice aspect, but I wouldn't underestimate how powerfully addicting some of these drugs can be to the point where it can override your "personal responsibility". Same thing with any substance like alcohol or cigarettes, gambling, over-eating, etc. It's very easy to slip into abuse and an addictive response and susceptibility isn't universal.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#338

Post by tcmart14 »

Mistletoe wrote: post #307
shawndrost wrote: post #280

I understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, Purdue should be shut down, and we should transform the legal regime around opioids. I understand people who think Purdue should continue, the status quo is OK, and the Sacklers are not [simply] villainous. I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-…

I mean I have been prescribed opioids many times and I just take them as prescribed and they help the pain of the surgery or whatever. I don’t even take the whole bottle. What will replace the opioids if we don’t allow them to be prescribed?

I don't think it s a black or white on opioids. But more of a being honest in the marketing and recommended dosages. For instance, Morphine is an opioid that often gets used in end-of-life care, this is a 90 year old on hospice actively dying from terminal cancer, so morphine to ease the suffering. No reason to not give them opioids. However, before the opioid crisis became a known crisis, my dad who is a disabled vet would get like 300 pills mailed to him a month, at the time to be indefinite, from the VA. This was when marketing was telling everyone percocet and vicoden were safe and non-addictive.

These heavy hitters do have a purpose. But it should as narrow as necessary.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#339

Post by nonethewiser »

legitster wrote: post #179

I find the Supreme court decisions to be fascinating reads and overall much more interesting and complicated than most news services make them out to be.

You mean articles with headlines like “ Supreme Court Nukes Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy in Brutal Ruling” arent actually substantive? https://newrepublic.com/post/183140/supreme-court-hunter-bid...

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#340

Post by wmf »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #295
lycopodiopsida wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US are proud of getting some terrorist in the middle of Pakistan or putting pressure on whistleblowers internationally but when big money is involved getting a criminal scumbag responsible for ~1m deaths is suddenly a huge problem.

Listen, we can't spend like we did going after Julian Assange on this. It's just business people doing business.

El Chapo is crying.
Post reply on HN