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

351–360 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#351

Post by nonethewiser »

legitster wrote: post #299
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

Liberal vs. conservative has always been the wrong take. The stronger dividing line is textualism vs pragmatism.

In fact Scalia famously said this coming from a textualist perspective which I think most people can agree with even if they hate him: “ If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach.”

This seems absolutely correct, but when is the last time ypu ever saw a commentator observe this? Critique has been reduced to “i dont like the effect so the interpretation of the law is wrong.” Put the other way, a fair observer must eventually say “i really hate the conclusion but they got it right.”

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#352

Post by pessimizer »

psunavy03 wrote: post #25

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.

Being a judge in the US is a political job. There's not even a universal requirement that one has to be a lawyer.

However, "political" how liberals are using it currently is a euphemism for "current disputes between the Democrat and Republican party management." If you don't accept that framing, or assume that these people are wind-up toys set into motion by the Presidents that appointed them, things can be very political without this split that the punditocracy project onto the court.

Whether bankruptcy courts can dictate a settlement for something this wide-reaching, and simply indemnify someone against future lawsuits is a very political question. What if the courts had settled with the Sacklers for $10, and indemnified them against future suits? Why are the bankruptcy courts allowed to improvise restrictions against what other courts and other victims are allowed to do?

It's redolent of one of the most disturbing elements of Epstein's first conviction, during which they immunized unidentified, unindicted co-conspirators. In order to avail yourself of this immunity, you had to be guilty of child trafficking with Epstein. Otherwise, you wouldn't have been a co-conspirator. Can a court name a sacrifice to suffer for others?

I'm not concerned in this case that some of the victims' lawyers were clamoring for it. Those lawyers could very well be paid for by people with another agenda. Why should the Sacklers be left with anything? The main guilty parties in their family are dead - now we're arguing with the people who are inheriting the proceeds of the crime. Why argue? Just seize it all; the damage far outstrips their worth, and their worth isn't even from their own labor, it's inherited.

Meanwhile, the descendants of slaves are mocked over 400 years of stolen wealth. And we can't even take the proceeds of the most horrific crimes from people who don't even work for a living, and will likely be left wealthy if every dime of that inheritance is taken away.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#353

Post by brookst »

nonethewiser wrote: post #341
subsubzero wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Its almost like they arent just a political body. Nah… thats unthinkable

Either that, or it's almost like politics have more dimensions than party affiliation.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#354

Post by richwater »

emaro wrote: post #347
richwater wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Opioids are highly addictive. If you're vulnerable and your doctor eagerly prescribes them because it feeds their wallet, you can easily loose control. Don't blame the victims.

> Don't blame the victims.

Expecting some personal agency is now victim blaming? Detoxing from opioids is not fatal. It sucks. But it's doable. You don't need to take your entire prescription. Take it while you're in pain.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#355

Post by rayiner »

jandrese wrote: post #264
rayiner wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the Supreme Court decided, and its extremely misleading to suggest that. At trial, the government alleged the mayor had "rigged the competition." But the government argued, and the jury was instructed, and the Seventh Circuit agreed, that the government did not need to prove that. Because, under the Seventh Circuit's view of the law, it did not matter whether the subsequent payment actually influenced…

> The question before the Supreme Court was only whether 18 USC 666 requires proof that the payment did or could influence the official act. And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action. Certainly corrupt officials in the future will never figure out a way to exploit this loophole. This isn't the first corruption case before the court where the standard of proof see…

> And the Supreme Court's finding is that it did not because the payment happened after the action.

It doesn’t have to do with the timing of the payment. It has to do with whether the defendant had a corrupt motive at the time he took the official act.

The government could have prosecuted this case under the same statute by saying: “he knew he was going to get paid later so he steered the contracts to this company.” They had the evidence to pursue that theory of the case. The jury could have inferred under the circumstances that the after the fact payment effected the official act. If they had done that this Supreme Court decision would’ve had no effect on the outcome.

The government instead made the choice to prosecute this case by having the jury instructed that it did not matter what the defendant was thinking at the time of the official act. That was the government’s choice.

This case just means that when the government brings a case under 18 U.S.C. 666–which is titled “theft or bribery”—they actually have to prove bribery, which requires corrupt motive at the time of the official act.

If the government wants to target the appearance of impropriety that can result from payments for official acts that weren’t corrupt at the time, there’s different laws for that (18 U.S.C. 201(c)).

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#356

Post by brookst »

doublet00th wrote: post #308
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 think there's a misunderstanding in what the settlement is about. As part of Purdue's bankruptcy, the Sackler family is voluntarily providing 6 billion dollars to help settle claims opioid victims have brought against Purdue Pharma. As a condition to provide the 6 billion dollars, the Sackler family has asked the bankruptcy judge to not even allow any new suits against the Sacklers related to the Opioid epidemic. T…

+1 for Levine's explanation. As usual he is insightful, great at communicating a complex topic, and just fun to read.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#357

Post by brookst »

rootusrootus wrote: post #187

I could see shielding from future civil liability as an option, but only after a true bankruptcy has occurred. Liquidate everything, and by that I mean everything , and then you can move on with your life. Definitely no shielding money in offshore accounts. If you're not willing to do that ... well, see you in court. Over and over, because every individual you hurt should have a chance to come at you with a liability…

I think you're mixing up the Purdue bankruptcy and individual, personal bankruptcies for the Sacklers. This case was about the corporate bankruptcy.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#358

Post by relaxing »

rayiner wrote: post #197
rob74 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this is not a topic that is politically divisive, so the judges were free to vote as they saw fit. Which doesn't say anything about how they will vote on other topics, like abortion, environmental protection etc.

The justices don't vote on "abortion, environmental protection, etc." They vote on the legal vehicles that have been used to address those things. And views on those legal vehicles map onto judicial philosophies that have nothing to do with the substantive issues. To use an analogy: there's people who think operating systems should be microkernels, and people who think they should be monolithic kernels. Windows NT wa…

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#359

Post by cwal37 »

frostburg wrote: post #346
subsubzero wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

[flagged]

Pretty much. He also authored an opinion today against the EPA's good neighbor rule. Directly continuing the work of his mother, who was head of the EPA during the early Reagan years until she was forced to resign as even within that administration she was flagrantly unwilling to do her job of enforcing regs to prevent pollution while also illegally utilizing the power of the office for personal politics.

Always strikes me as weird that the clear through line from her time in power to his own jurisprudence on environmental issues doesn't come up more.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#360

Post by esd_g0d »

loeg wrote: post #334
esd_g0d wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Literally does not happen in two countries that I know of, and I bet in many countries of the world (developed ones even).
Post reply on HN