FDA appealing to Supreme Court and asking for embargo to remain until after the Supreme Court Ruling

[Luisa]

The FDA is appealing the ruling and asking to continue the embargo until the ruling from the Supreme Court. Can you believe this? The FDA is power hungry. I fear njoy will not be able to afford a Supreme Court case. It is a shame the FDA is not forced to pay legal bills when they lose a case. I am so disgusted.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Bustastew]

.... the fda!

 

[son et lumiere]

Major BS......

 

[Vapor Pete]

The FDA is appealing the ruling and asking to continue the embargo until the ruling from the Supreme Court. Can you believe this?

Source please?

-VP

 

[Vocalek]

Source please?

-VP

To keep up with the court case, read the SE, njoy vs FDA thread on a regular basis. (It is the top one on the News forum). JustJulie checks the docket every day for new filings. See her response #1150. You can download and read the papers filed by the FDA's lawyers using your tax dollars.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/92186-se-njoy-vs-fda-discussion-115.html

 

[hairball]

I just love seeing how we pay our government taxes for them to turn around and use the money against us. Rotten 's. Do they have nothing better to do with our money? How about feeding starving children instead of this ! Nothing irks me more than this. They figure that the little guy, Njoy and the rest of us, don't have the funds to keep up. I hope the courts tell the FDA to go in their hats and throw the book at them.

Sorry, I had to vent.

 

[ScottB]

Source please?

-VP

To keep up with the court case, read the SE, NJOY vs FDA thread on a regular basis. (It is the top one on the News forum). JustJulie checks the docket every day for new filings. See her response #1150. You can download and read the papers filed by the FDA's lawyers using your tax dollars.

Elaine, I think VP was questioning, as do I, the “Supreme Court” portion of both the thread title and original post. There’s a bit more process to undergo before this gets, if it gets, to the wise 9… right…?

 

[Territoo]

Elaine, I think VP was questioning, as do I, the “Supreme Court” portion of both the thread title and original post. There’s a bit more process to undergo before this gets, if it gets, to the wise 9… right…?

That is correct. FDA has asked the Appellate court for a rehearing. They have not (yet) requested an appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[ScottB]

Thanks, Territoo… it was a rhetorical question. Provocative but misleading thread title.

Speaking of provocative, wish I was near Abilene – sure would like to help you with that bottle of Jack… you know… like in the song... Jack Daniels Makes Her Wings Fall Off… or somethin' like that...

 

[PlanetScribbles]

They have not (yet) requested an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Not yet they haven't. Stay tuned though ...

 

[Vocalek]

It's a logical error to have made. We understand the heirarchy of the court system: lower court, appeals court, supreme court. So it is logical to think that after the appeals court has ruled, the next step would be the supreme court. However, there are intermediate steps most of us did not know about. The loser in the appeals court can ask the same 3 judges to reconsider their decision and/or ask to have all of the appeals court judges look at the case and make a group decision. It seems to me that in this case, the FDA has done both. Shotgun instead of a rifle. Leaving no stone unturned. Is that correct, yvilla?

 

[Luisa]

It's a logical error to have made. We understand the heirarchy of the court system: lower court, appeals court, supreme court. So it is logical to think that after the appeals court has ruled, the next step would be the supreme court. However, there are intermediate steps most of us did not know about. The loser in the appeals court can ask the same 3 judges to reconsider their decision and/or ask to have all of the appeals court judges look at the case and make a group decision. It seems to me that in this case, the FDA has done both. Shotgun instead of a rifle. Leaving no stone unturned. Is that correct, yvilla?

Since all 3 Judges ruled against the FDA,is that not already a group decision? What different argument or research could they use to make the Judges change their ruling? I just hope "our" side is able the correct the "distortions" the FDA used in the first Appeals case. What do our legal minds say?

I guess we are all very angry over this and that is not really productive. The silly old saying about not getting mad but getting even is all I can think about to lessen my anger. MERRY CHRISTMAS

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please try not to post new threads about issues that already active threads on the same topic.

 

[heymichael]

I do believe the FDA stands for ....... F Dem A**Holes!

 

[xg4bx]

the agenda is glaringly obvious at this point. i wish issues that actually mattered were attacked with such fervor.

how about the fda actually worry about the poisonous meds they allow in the marketplace?

 

[James Wall]

Well, the only thing that I'm aware of coming out since the last court decision was a study that E-cigs were safer than analogs and a ban in Washington that showed a city council can be elected with no ability to use reason. How can the FDA justify an appeal of this appeal at the same level? Logically shouldn't the appeal be refused?

On the plus side this delays the outrageous tobacco taxes that will wind up coming, but the limbo here is just getting to be mind-boggling.

Question, if the FDA comes up with some sort of proof that e-cigs are being bought by minors do you think the judges will slam them for failing to regulate them under the Tobacco Act?

 

[yvilla]

The loser in the appeals court can ask the same 3 judges to reconsider their decision and/or ask to have all of the appeals court judges look at the case and make a group decision. It seems to me that in this case, the FDA has done both. Shotgun instead of a rifle. Leaving no stone unturned. Is that correct, yvilla?

Absolutely correct Elaine.

And Luisa, the three judges who decided the appeal comprised the "panel" assigned to the case. The request for a rehearing "en banc" is a request to have ALL the active judges of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider the decision of the panel (thirteen of them). As discussed in the litigation thread, the chances of that request being granted are extremely small, as are the chances of getting the panel itself to reconsider its decision.

 

[Luisa]

Absolutely correct Elaine.

And Luisa, the three judges who decided the appeal comprised the "panel" assigned to the case. The request for a rehearing "en banc" is a request to have ALL the active judges of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals reconsider the decision of the panel (thirteen of them). As discussed in the litigation thread, the chances of that request being granted are extremely small, as are the chances of getting the panel itself to reconsider its decision.

Thank you Yvilla. When someone is unfamiliar with all the technicalities of the law,it sometimes makes it difficult to understand the terminology and the process.