The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a controversial settlement that would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the nation’s opioid epidemic but that also shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits despite the fact that it made its fortune selling prescription opioids.
I see, well i did not read the case but sounds like majority took the side that you can’t waive criminal liability via a settlement you are not even a party too lol
which sounds right
dissent decided to cry over money poor drug addicts won’t get when in reality that money was not going to the plebs anyway. does not sound like a legal argument nor is it even coached in reality.
so for who took which side… mehh, they collude on who takes what side for “optics”
NOW WE ARE TALKING
Mullah Kavanaugh’s logic has no merit, he knows it and anyone with half a brain also knows this.
The whole write was the news headlines to make majority seem like the assholes… pathetic Mullah Kavanaugh
But why are the liberal justices falling for it?
That sound everyone just heard was the Overton window flying by…
We have far right fascists justices and pro corporation “moderate” justices.
Neither are going to pick people over corporations often when it matters.
Mullahs are not liberal in any sense of the word lol
Kagan, Jackson, Sotomayor are usually referred to as the liberal justices, aren’t they? Not sure whatchu getting at?
Also, why are you referring to them as Mullahs, they’re not religious teachers, any of them
labeling as them as liberal makes them seem like they are on “liberal” team whatever that means.
Mullahs are the owner class team.
Do you honestly believe folks like Jackson are equivalent to people like Thomas/Alito beyond their legal pedigree? You think she wants what they do?
i think peasants’ worship of the mullahs is a futile exercise similar to watching young bucks in tights throwing a pig skin around.
I was always more a LeBron guy myself tho!
I don’t worship them I simply get surprised time to time altho maybe I should read their full dissents to get a better idea
I see, well i did not read the case but sounds like majority took the side that you can’t waive criminal liability via a settlement you are not even a party too lol
which sounds right
dissent decided to cry over money poor drug addicts won’t get when in reality that money was not going to the plebs anyway. does not sound like a legal argument nor is it even coached in reality.
so for who took which side… mehh, they collude on who takes what side for “optics”