--- "Steven L. Robinson" <srobin21 at comcast.net> wrote:
> All three cases turn on the court's developing view
> of federal preemption of
> state torts. Specifically, whether or not approval
> by the Food and Drug
> Administration immunizes the makers of
> pharmaceuticals and medical devices
> from state court damages claims.
>
[WS:] But this seems to be the way the SC is going in general, no? They just gutted the NY airline passenger rights law on the sam grounds, not to mention legalization of marijuna in CA.
I tend to think that it is generally a good thing - after all, without it Jim Crow would still be on the books - even though it looks reprehensible in these particular instances. Suing big companies for damages is basically Amerikan-style populist individualism that rewards a few but screws up many (or at least leaves them in the dust.) Stronger and more effectively enforced federal regulations instead of local legal patchwork and individual litigation would not only be far more effective in providing public safety, but it would dramatically cut transaction costs, such as malpracrice insurance, exorbitant legal costs, unnecessary testing, etc.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com