FDA's "Deeming Rule" Deemed Unconstitutional

[Annette Rogers]

A shocking new study by the Pacific Legal Foundation discovered that 98% of FDA rules since 2001 have been issued unconstitutionally. And, yes, that would include the Deeming Rule currently threatening to decimate the American vaping industry.

FDA's Deeming Rule Deemed Unconstitutional

 

[Toronnah]

Only the courts can rule on constitionality.

 

[bombastinator]

Wtf is the “Pacific legal foundation” and who funds them? An opinion that a law is unconstitutional by anything except the Supreme Court is nothing afaik. IF the court accepts a case, and IF that case has bearing on ecigs it MIGHT do something.

 

[Annette Rogers]

Yes, that is exactly the case. The principle of judicial review established by the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison gives the court the authority to strike down rulings that are unconstitutional. The FDA is already being challenged on this issue in court by lawyers representing the vapor industry. If the court agrees that these regulations were issued in violation of the appointments clause, that would make them unconstitutional and, as established by the precedent in Lucia v. SEC, they could be struck down.

 

[bombastinator]

Yes, that is exactly the case. The principle of judicial review established by the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison gives the court the authority to strike down rulings that are unconstitutional. The FDA is already being challenged on this issue in court by lawyers representing the vapor industry. If the court agrees that these regulations were issued in violation of the appointments clause, that would make them unconstitutional and, as established by the precedent in Lucia v. SEC, they could be struck down.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Means nothing unless it happens. Also the current Supreme Court is not exactly normal. It’s been deliberately stuffed by the right wing. As such it’s a lot less predictable than a more traditional court. A group can make an argument that just about anything at all is unconstitutional and historically more or less has.

 

[Annette Rogers]

I found this to be a very interesting piece of information, especially because it was featured in The Hill (a politically focused news site that has high credibility). Obviously we'll have to see how this plays out in the courts but I was not previously aware that this was even an argument. And if it is possible that lower level employees are issuing rules at FDA willy nilly without having constitutional authority, in my opinion that's something that more people should be aware of and take a look at.

 

[jandrew]

Coulda woulda shoulda. Means nothing unless it happens. Also the current Supreme Court is not exactly normal. It’s been deliberately stuffed by the right wing. As such it’s a lot less predictable than a more traditional court. A group can make an argument that just about anything at all is unconstitutional and historically more or less has.

Wow. Hyperbole much? Four left leaning justices and five right leaning justices is: "not exactly normal", "deliberately stuffed by the right wing" and "a lot less predictable than a more traditional court"?

Please stick to the issues and leave your party-line outside.

 

[bombastinator]

Wow. Hyperbole much? Four left leaning justices and five right leaning justices is: "not exactly normal", "deliberately stuffed by the right wing" and "a lot less predictable than a more traditional court"?

Please stick to the issues and leave your party-line outside.

6. Also they didn’t used to stuff the courts in either direction at all. The issue is that they’ve been picked very specifically for their views on roe v wade. Not whether they are left or right.

I stand by my statement. It’s not hyperbole . It’s history.

 

[jandrew]

6. Also they didn’t used to stuff the courts in either direction at all. The issue is that they’ve been picked very specifically for their views on roe v wade. Not whether they are left or right.

I stand by my statement. It’s not hyperbole . It’s history.

Not 6.

There are 9 justices on the supreme court, including the chief justice:
Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer are more liberal/left leaning, while Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and, most recently, Kavanaugh are more conservative/right leaning.

Yes, both parties have nominated party-line justices for decades. Reagan was the last President to nominate a justice who wasn't strictly party-line (indeed, Kennedy leaned left at least as often or more often than not).

Calling a 4:5 split in the political makeup of the supreme court "deliberately stuffed by the right wing" is hyperbole. Period.