Smoking Everywhere V. FDA Daily Docket Sheet Update--APPEAL's COURT ISSUES STAY
- Thread starter Sun Vaporer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Because this thread is practically bound to take a turn for the political at some point, maybe it would be a good idea to have a separate thread strictly for discussion of the topic, outside of the official updates?
And add my "thank you" to the list, Sun. You're doing an excellent job keeping us in the loop.
And add my "thank you" to the list, Sun. You're doing an excellent job keeping us in the loop.
njoy's response was well thought out.....thank you, Sun, for the continued monitoring of this case.
I have september 11
I believe there already is one, cluttered with 60 pages of guessing. Thanks sun for the updates.........sorry to clutter up this thread.
The MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by SOTTERA, INC.( NJOY) was granted and it was further ordered that FDA's deadline to file their response, if any, to the supplemental briefs filed by SE and NJOY be extended to July 10, 2009 by Judge Leon.
Sun
Sun
im confused. you named that post "Docket Update June 2nd 2009" is this a typo or was that info from an old docket update that was reposted and slipped through my holey net of understanding?
i think my cat just ate a cricket
I think what DyZie was referring to is that you have the date titled JUNE 2nd, not JULY 2nd....
Thanks for the updates Sun, YOU ROCK!
No excuse necessary Sun......It's still new news to us....Thanks for all you do!!
The Wiz!
Today the only movement on the Docket Sheet was the Clerks getting ready for the Holiday weekend. A whole lot of of "I am out of here early". And that includes me. So everyone have a Happy 4th of July and enjoy the festivals---Enjoy!!!!-------Sun
Just my 2 cents but, I really beleive that this is something that needs to enter an open debate in the congress. It goes entirerly against our constitution to allow a federal bueacracy to pass regulations on something thats not even mentioned in our founding document. Really even saying that it should be up to the congress is against those documents as well, but that would be the best I could hope for. This should be a states decision on not a decision on some government agency thats filled with people that none of us elected, and don't answer to us the people.
Sickening, but it is what it is.
Sickening, but it is what it is.
My law speak is a little fuzzy. Does this mean the court ruled in favor of Njoy et alls right to do business and that the FDA overstepped their bounds ?
There was no movement on the Docket Sheet today. We are awaiting the FDA's Reply Brief to both SE's and NJOY's Supplemental Briefs which is due no later then July 10, 2009 to be filed with the Court.
Sun
Sun
Surf your were so right!!!!!!
Check out Post 53!!!!8-o Thanks SUN for all your work!!!!
The Docket Sheet today showed the AFFIDAVIT's filed by SE stating that they did indeed mail their submissions to Counsel for the FDA which again is simply another mandatory procedural filing with the Court. The FDA's Reply Brief to both SE's and NJOY's Supplemental Briefs must be filed by Friday......
Sun
Sun
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Just because the FDA determines that e-cigarettes meet the definition of a drug device combination doesn't mean that the FDA must block imports of the product or take other unreasonable enforcement actions.
More than a decade ago when then FDA Commissioner David Kessler responded to our requests by declaring cigarettes as drug delivery combinations, nobody suggested that the FDA should (or must) block cigarette imports from other countries.
In fact, Kessler and others at FDA repeatedly insisted (including in arguments before the US Supreme Court) that the FDA didn't have to ban cigarettes (or take any other draconian measures) simply because the agency had the authority to do so. Instead, once Kessler asserted jurisdicational authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products, the FDA's only enforcement actions were against retailers who were caught selling tobacco to minors (and even then, the FDA issued warnings for the first offense).
Seems to me that the enforcement actions taken by the FDA (a decade ago) against tobacco retailers who were caught selling to youth are the only reasonable and responsible enforcement actions the FDA should be taking against e-cigarettes.
More than a decade ago when then FDA Commissioner David Kessler responded to our requests by declaring cigarettes as drug delivery combinations, nobody suggested that the FDA should (or must) block cigarette imports from other countries.
In fact, Kessler and others at FDA repeatedly insisted (including in arguments before the US Supreme Court) that the FDA didn't have to ban cigarettes (or take any other draconian measures) simply because the agency had the authority to do so. Instead, once Kessler asserted jurisdicational authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products, the FDA's only enforcement actions were against retailers who were caught selling tobacco to minors (and even then, the FDA issued warnings for the first offense).
Seems to me that the enforcement actions taken by the FDA (a decade ago) against tobacco retailers who were caught selling to youth are the only reasonable and responsible enforcement actions the FDA should be taking against e-cigarettes.
Well Bill--if you look at the FDA's pleadings, their intent is clearly stated to the Court. They plead that they what the e-cig off the market --period. They further plead that someone would need to make application and go through the entire approval process. That is the definition, as advanced by the FDA, of "reasonable enforement"---no importation, sales or marketing of the e-cig till it is approved. It is right there in their pleadings to the Court. The FDA has left no room for middleground as you suggest. They did the exact same thing in the Nicotine Water case. There really is no mystery about it. We will see soon how Judge Leon rules.
Sun
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
