AOC vs SCOTUS
- Thread starter RxCowboy
- Start date
She didn’t really/exactly say the Supreme Court has no authority to do it.
In the context of the discussion she WAS saying a single district court level judge doesn’t have the authority to bind the entire nation with his or her ruling because he or she has no authority outside their jurisdiction of the federal district in which they sit….which is an interesting and nuanced question upon which legal experts disagree.
The question is largely moot at this point though because there has been a second decision from a different district court judge ruling the exact opposite of this one which explicitly limited the breath of its order to the federal circuit in which it sits.
And conflicting ruling from different judges/districts/circuits is the reason we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court.
In the context of the discussion she WAS saying a single district court level judge doesn’t have the authority to bind the entire nation with his or her ruling because he or she has no authority outside their jurisdiction of the federal district in which they sit….which is an interesting and nuanced question upon which legal experts disagree.
The question is largely moot at this point though because there has been a second decision from a different district court judge ruling the exact opposite of this one which explicitly limited the breath of its order to the federal circuit in which it sits.
And conflicting ruling from different judges/districts/circuits is the reason we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court.
This is almost as good as AOC's cow fartgate
Except that a district court cannot strike down regulatory approval for a drug in a single district without affecting regulatory approval in all other districts, because that is the way regulatory approval works. Otherwise no district court could possibly have jurisdiction over the FDA. So, it seems to me that is exactly what she is saying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure they can.
And they can surely limit their ruling to the circuit they sit in.
And their district court ruling has little to no precedential value, as has been show by a conflicting ruling (albeit more limited than the original) from another District Court. T
Which is what AOC was actually talking about rather than your gross mischaracterization of her statement (which never,....not once....said the Supreme Court SCOTUS doesn't has authority over a regulatory agency of the US government).
As I said, that question is an interesting one upon which legal experts can reasonably disagree. Maybe you should stick to pharmacology instead of making broad conclusive legal conclusions.
How about you address your mischaracterization of her statements before exhibiting your lack of legal training (yeah I know....pharmacy law education...yada yada yada) on what is a widely debated jurisprudential, jurisdictional, conflicts legal question.
A circuit court can limit their ruling, but the FDA can't limit their approval regionally, it just doesn't work that way. And for that matter, it doesn't matter if it is SCOTUS or a lower court that she is talking about, to say that a court doesn't have jurisdiction over a regulatory agency is nonsensical. And in fact, SCOTUS just ruled 9-0 something to that effect in Axon v FTC yesterday.
I'm sure that AOC wouldn't disagree with the SCOTUS authority to put the lower court ruling on hold as it did on Friday.
So you still aren’t gonna address your complete mischaracterization in your original post about what she said.
You’re just gonna double down.
Got it.
She deserves derision. Her acceptance of tickets to the Met gala, stiffing her hair dresser and then throwing her staff under the bus, fake tears at a parking lot in Texas while pretending to be at the border, defending TikTok while her PAC takes money from China, defending her district from good paying Amazon jobs, supporting legislation to do away with gas ranges while she has a gas range. Naw, she’s a clown, and she’s no less clownish here.
I did hear some interesting things this morning on WSJ editorial report about the case itself, such as it is about 14 years past the statutes of limitations and the plaintiffs hadn’t really proved their standing. I haven’t really dug into the case, but they also said that the district judge tried to get into the science rather than administrative procedure, which would actually be inappropriate for him and would likely be overturned by SCOTUS.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you’re still not gonna address your mischaracterization. Which now appears to be deliberate.
You’re gonna triple down.
Got it.
I’m not defending her by any means.
If it’s your opinion she deserves derision (an opinion I don’t disagree with all that much…almost all politicians deserve derision) maybe deride her for things she actually said and did.
I’m pointing out that you started this entire thread with a false premise and claim. One which is looking more and more like was deliberate.
Last edited:
This is the way.
Okay, let's look at what she actually said. "I do not believe the courts have the authority over the FDA they just asserted" and let's try to find context for the statement. From The Hill 04/09/23:
“I do not believe that the courts have the authority over the FDA that they just asserted. And I do believe that it creates a crisis,” Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.
“Should the Supreme Court do that, it would essentially institute a national abortion ban, because you have an extraordinary amount of states who have implemented surgical bans or bans after very early time periods.”
Note that here she also included SCOTUS in her discussion of "the courts" and not just the district court. She equates striking down mifepristone to a de facto national abortion ban because some states have placed limits on surgical abortion which is absurd because other states have not placed limits on surgical abortion and in fact Republicans are getting their asses kicked on the issue. To go back to the original tweet, the clip was from CNN's State of the Union in which she said that she didn't believe that the courts had the authority over the FDA they just asserted, clearly also including SCOTUS. She is also clearly wrong, and a clown and deserves derision.
Now, I'm going to reiterate the stuff that I heard on WSJ Editorial Report yesterday morning, because it is all worth repeating and you ignored it. I did hear some interesting things this morning on WSJ editorial report about the case itself, such as it is about 14 years past the statutes of limitations and the plaintiffs hadn’t really proved their standing. I haven’t really dug into the case, but they also said that the district judge tried to get into the science rather than administrative procedure, which would actually be inappropriate for him and would likely be overturned by SCOTUS.
“Should the Supreme Court do that”....is an expression that they have the authority to do so, but it would be the wrong thing to do because of the effect.
Thus clearly NOT saying they don’t have the authority to do so. In fact, indicating the exact opposite of your assertion. It’s a statement acknowledge authority while arguing why they shouldn’t exercise authority in such a manner.
But you do you, big guy.
Thus clearly NOT saying they don’t have the authority to do so. In fact, indicating the exact opposite of your assertion. It’s a statement acknowledge authority while arguing why they shouldn’t exercise authority in such a manner.
But you do you, big guy.
I ignored it because it was an attempt by you to pivot away from what was being discussed by myself.
I’ll continue to ignore attempts to pivot and distract....no matter how many times you try.
Not really interested in discussing the merits of the decision. Especially with someone that they “haven’t really dug into” those merits.
Except she had just said, "I do not believe that the courts have the authority over the FDA that they just asserted" which undoes the argument you just made just before you made it. She is a clown and deserves nothing but derision.
You’re still mischaracterizing what she said. You left unbolded the part that means she isn’t saying they have no authority just that they didn’t have certain authority.
This place is going to end up worse than the old one.
OSUinTX
Looks like you are away
Yeah, sure like it better before the political threads got introduced. There are a thousand places to discuss politics, current events, etc, but only one quality site for OSU sports. Would have preferred the posts stay sports related, but ...This place is going to end up worse than the old one.
This subforum will be the only place to discuss politics on this board. There will be no AV politics board/thread and politics will not be in sports threads.
Feel free to turn off notifications for this subforum if you would prefer not to read or discuss politics.
OSUinTX
Looks like you are away
Thanks, will look into that
