I'm torn on this one. Obviously, the victims deserve to get payment and whatnot, but the other half of this is that the bankruptcy court agreement with the Sackler family would prevent them from future liability for similar cases. Supreme Court is saying the bankruptcy court didn't have the power to grant that, which, if excluded, would open the Sacklers to future lawsuits. I'm all for that family getting sued into oblivion, but we can't trust the Supreme Court to do what's right either. We have to treat everything they do with suspicion. This comes on the heels of the ruling of 'bribery is now basically legal', so it makes me wonder how much the Sackler family is paying them.
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
83 points (98.8% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4644 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Far too many wealthy people have forgotten the alternative to these processes of checks and balances. And too often they get away with little to no damages done to them. As QoL continues to plummet, they will eventually push someone with nothing to lose.
Because of fucking course
Who will we blame our problems on if we just go and start taking steps towards solving them
It was rejected because the settlement would have made the company bulletproof against any further civil suits and effectively left the most villainous people with billions of dollars
Do you have source for this so I can learn more?
Yes. It says it quite clearly in the article above. That's where I read it.
Quote the block you’re referring to please. The lawyer wouldn’t be calling this a major setback if the plan was flawed (what you’re seemingly claiming) - in fact:
“The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. “
Which actually means the opposite of what I think you’re getting at. Even if they bankrupted, they could still be sued. Help me understand where/what you saw that lead to this rationale.
You read the same article I did buddy, I don't have any other information. If you disagree with my assessment of it that's fine, I'm not going to sit here and copy/paste the whole article for you though.
Makes claim
Makes no attempt to back it up
Kk good talk lol
Dude, it literally says it in the article in the post. If you can't be bothered to read it that's not my problem. I'm not going to go through and post quotes and links to an article that the post has already provided. It's not difficult, just click the link in the post
I’ve obviously read the article. I posted quotes from the article.
You don’t need to do anything - but if you’re going to make a claim that someone has explicitly countered with a direct quote, the sensible thing would be to continue the conversation.
At best, you’re trolling. We can conclude this conversation if you’re too lazy to actually back up anything you’ve said with tangible evidence. Until then you’re just saying words. That’s the only factual take away anyone should have from your claim.
It's literally in the article my source is right there. The only person trolling at this point is you. There is literally nothing I can quote here that isn't in the article, so copying and pasting it for you serves no purpose. I am done arguing with you about it, so I am blocking you now.
Have a nice day
Figures - somehow the guy trying to have an informed conversation with someone about their views on an article when clear confusion about said view is expressed, they refuse to elaborate or participate in civil discourse.
Some people just want to speak to hear their own voice I suppose. If anyone else shares this view, and does wish to participate, I’d be happy to continue
But they bankrupted their shell company and paid like 250,000 5 years ago what more could you monsters want‽
/s
This is the best summary I could come up with:
After deliberating more than six months, the justices in a 5-4 vote blocked an agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The high court had put the settlement on hold last summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.
Arguments in early December lasted nearly two hours in a packed courtroom as the justices seemed, by turns, unwilling to disrupt a carefully negotiated settlement and reluctant to reward the Sacklers.
The Purdue Pharma settlement would have ranked among the largest reached by drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies to resolve epidemic-related lawsuits filed by state, local and Native American tribal governments and others.
Sackler family members no longer are on the company’s board, and they have not received payouts from it since before Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy.
The original article contains 848 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I was all ready for outrage, but I think maybe they got this one right. Equality under the law should mean that the top of a pyramid is treated the same as the bottom.