Exempting big pharma from lawsuits has nothing to do with grand principles of constitutional law or federalism. Immunity from lawsuits is the holy grail of most corporations and often is unattainable. However, where an administrative agency has jurisdiction over the subject, corporations will invariably make the argument that the agency has exclusive jurisdiction that preempts all or most civil lawsuits. Here we have the FDA, so the pre-emption argument is inevitable. What's news here is the fact that the US Supreme Court is buying it. Pharma certainly doesn't need protection as it is one of the most profitable industries on earth. SR
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Wojtek Sokolowski <swsokolowski at yahoo.com>
> >
>
> [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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk