Purdue Pharma opioid settlement that shielded Sackler family rejected by Supreme Court | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a controversial settlement that would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the nation’s opioid epidemic but that also shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits despite the fact that it made its fortune selling prescription opioids.
    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      6 months ago

      liberal justices

      That sound everyone just heard was the Overton window flying by…

      We have far right fascists justices and pro corporation “moderate” justices.

      Neither are going to pick people over corporations often when it matters.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      41·
      6 months ago

      liberal justices

      Mullahs are not liberal in any sense of the word lol

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        22·
        6 months ago

        Kagan, Jackson, Sotomayor are usually referred to as the liberal justices, aren’t they? Not sure whatchu getting at?

        Also, why are you referring to them as Mullahs, they’re not religious teachers, any of them

        • sunzu@kbin.run
          11·
          6 months ago

          labeling as them as liberal makes them seem like they are on “liberal” team whatever that means.

          Mullahs are the owner class team.

          • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
            22·
            6 months ago

            Do you honestly believe folks like Jackson are equivalent to people like Thomas/Alito beyond their legal pedigree? You think she wants what they do?

            • sunzu@kbin.run
              32·
              6 months ago

              i think peasants’ worship of the mullahs is a futile exercise similar to watching young bucks in tights throwing a pig skin around.

              I was always more a LeBron guy myself tho!

              • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
                22·
                6 months ago

                I don’t worship them I simply get surprised time to time altho maybe I should read their full dissents to get a better idea

                • sunzu@kbin.run
                  32·
                  6 months ago

                  I see, well i did not read the case but sounds like majority took the side that you can’t waive criminal liability via a settlement you are not even a party too lol

                  which sounds right

                  dissent decided to cry over money poor drug addicts won’t get when in reality that money was not going to the plebs anyway. does not sound like a legal argument nor is it even coached in reality.

                  so for who took which side… mehh, they collude on who takes what side for “optics”