Why does the S. Court matter when torture and anti-gay laws don't?

[TheMachineWins]

If the U.S. won't hold criminals, traitors and bigots accountable, why the hell should any citizen like me even give a crap about a Supreme Court pick that the elite and paid off politicos will surely pass anyway? What I think, feel and live is meaningless to those who already have their minds made up, their careers bought and their propaganda planned.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Funny you should say that - after reading a few pages of posts on DU, the extent of the mess

we are in and the seeming inability (or unwillingness) to really want to solve problems and peel back the rot makes it all seem collectively hopeless. The playing field isn't level at all....and neither party really works in the best interest of the country - or the world.

[nichomachus]

2. I wondered

why I really didn't give a particular shit about the Supreme Court nomination, and I think you just nailed it.

[cali]

3. it matters

here's a recent case that demonstrates that it matters.

In one its most significant decisions this Term, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in favor of musician Diana Levine in her lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company Wyeth. What the decision means is that drugmakers do not get a complete defense to state law products liability lawsuits simply by getting an OK from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their drugs' warning labels.

The case was brought after the plaintiff, professional musician Diana Levine, went in to a local clinic for treatment of a migraine headache. After a first round of treatment failed to help, her doctor administered Wyeth's nausea drug Phenergan using a method called an "IV-push" which is basically a direct injection into a vein. That doesn't sound like too big a deal, but Phenergan is "corrosive and causes irreversible gangrene if it enters a patient’s artery," which is exactly what happened to Levine. She ended up getting gangrene from the injection, resulting in the amputation of her hand and forearm, substantial medical expenses, and the loss of her livelihood as a musician.

Levine sued in Vermont state court and won nearly $7 million, arguing that Wyeth should have placed better warnings on its labels regarding intravenous injection of the drug. Wyeth, on the other hand, indicated that its label had been "deemed sufficient by the when it approved Wyeth’s new drug application in 1955 and when it later approved changes in the drug’s labeling." Notably, the warning label actually did point out the dangers of inadvertently injecting the drug into an artery, including "gangrene requiring amputation". Those FDA approvals, Wyeth argued, should provide it with a complete defense to Levine's claims because the federal drug labeling law under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts (i.e. trumps) state law product liability claims based on inadequate warnings.

<snip>
http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2009/03/diana-levine-wins-supreme-court-case-and-deals-wyeth-drugmakers-serious-loss-product-liability-suit-.html

[Enrique]

4. thanks for posting that

i hadn't even heard of that case, and I'm surprised to see how it was decided. Not surprised which three justices dissented...

I suspect the OP's question was rhetorical, but thanks for the info.

[cali]

5. yeah, it was a surprise to the legal community to

and it's an important decision- plus Diana got a measure of justice.