Citizens May Finally Get Some Relief from Abusive Agencies

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by Elizabeth Conley, Jan 10, 2012.

  1. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I hope this fiend enjoys being sued. Maybe a hefty court settlement will disabuse him of this notion.
  2. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Sorry, I'm not understanding. You hope he gets sued for expressing an opinion??
  3. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Nope. I hope he gets sued when his product harms someone. It's not expressing his opinion that's the problem, it's acting on that opinion. Does he really imagine he has no responsibility to make a safe product? I'm dying to watch a jury of his peers weigh this question. I don't think they'll agree.

    The FDA cannot supervise food packaging to the extent that he implies. If he and his cronies really are doing what he implies, he'll be eating those words in court. If he was speaking for a company I held stock in, I'd ditch the stock. If his products were in my pantry, I'd put them in the trash. He has just made the company that much more vulnerable to claims, and he's given me serious questions about the safety of his products.

    It would be as if I claimed that the police were responsible for making sure I didn't run anyone down on my way to my next business appointment. If I made that claim openly then my insurance company may have grounds to drop me.

    I'm not crazy about the FDA's current size and over-reach, because what really prevents food and drug manufacturers from endangering consumers is personal ethics, threat of litigation, public opinion/market forces. The FDA is just another enormous federal agency providing security theater at a huge cost to citizens.
  4. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Oh, I thought you were talking about my professor friend from 30 years ago who made the statement about businessmen, babies, and blenders.
  5. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Nope. I'm agreeing with the prof, to a certain extent. Most successful businessmen have better ethics than that, but there's always one who will do exactly as the prof implies.
  6. Leave no trace

    Leave no trace Original Member


    Hmm, comparatively Atilla the hun seems like a friendly guy !
  7. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    And as if to prove aforementioned professor's point:
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Technology has advanced since Atilla's time, and we now have Ronco.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Usually these indigenous tribes are kept isolated so they can preserve their traditional ways of life, which in the Amazon might mean using blow guns instead of firearms.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  10. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    SCOTUS: Sacketts 1, EPA 0

    This is majorly major. :)
  11. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    yes, a good victory. but why did this have to go all the way to the supreme court?
    it was a complete quashing of these people's ability for judicial review of a property confiscation by jackboots...
  12. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

    Yay unanimous.

    As I read the ruling, though, it's pretty narrowly focused and more related to Administrative Procedure Act/judicial review than on due process. Still, having each of the three branches protecting their turf is one way to maintain separation of powers ...

    And it takes me back to my original query: this ruling affirms the role of APA compliance for agencies. TSA has consistently refused to comply with the APA, even when directed to do so by the DC District Court. Isn't this ruling another arrow in the quiver to make TSA comply with the APA and the courts?

Share This Page