>The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.
In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.
Actual ruling seems reasonable from a legal perspective. It is the EPA's job to determine if a chemical is safe. If they say it is, why is it the court's job to say otherwise?
The people who put shit like this out, referring to the Supreme Court as the "Trump administration" siding with Bayer in favor of cancer and poison, think you are too stupid to find that "Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined."
Most Americans do not understand the constitutional role of the judicial branch, and rhetoric like this exploits that in ways that are really bad for the integrity of our government and political discourse.
Supreme Court opinions are public and generally comprehensible by an average citizen. Please take even the tiniest amount of effort to understand how our government process works before buying into flamebait from media orgs and NGOs that profit from your ignorance. And if you have a problem with our laws, it's usually best to blame the lawmakers first.
The republicans are made up of a bunch of religious people who need israel to "start end times" or whatever, and that involves hating muslims. But then there's the anti-semites. They coexist and are a primary reason donald trump's both terms exist.
Just so I'm certain I understand, you think the reason Donald trump got elected is because you think the republicans want to end the world and need Israel to start the process for them? But you also think trump leveraged anti semitism too pull in another demographic?
I don't recall either of these two things being election issues.
Sorry last post errored, just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon. And also they are pushing SCOTUS to replace 1st Amendment with IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
> just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon
This court decision wasn't about legalizing Roundup. Roundup was already 100% legal before this court decision, so there is zero reason for anyone to have pushed this court to legalize it. Even if the US suddenly decided to make Roundup illegal to use, in what way would that prevent Israel (or any other country outside of the US) from using it? Not only is what you are saying factually wrong, it wouldn't make any sense even if it were true.
Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell, and Wikipedia's summary is:
>The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.
In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.
The best kind of correct.
Editorialized title.
Actual ruling seems reasonable from a legal perspective. It is the EPA's job to determine if a chemical is safe. If they say it is, why is it the court's job to say otherwise?
Absolute disgrace.
The people who put shit like this out, referring to the Supreme Court as the "Trump administration" siding with Bayer in favor of cancer and poison, think you are too stupid to find that "Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined."
Most Americans do not understand the constitutional role of the judicial branch, and rhetoric like this exploits that in ways that are really bad for the integrity of our government and political discourse.
Supreme Court opinions are public and generally comprehensible by an average citizen. Please take even the tiniest amount of effort to understand how our government process works before buying into flamebait from media orgs and NGOs that profit from your ignorance. And if you have a problem with our laws, it's usually best to blame the lawmakers first.
...Health Insurance industry celebrates long term reliance goals.
[flagged]
Where is the evidence for your Jewish conspiracy theory?
the Mommy and Daddy racist are fighting again.
What do you mean?
The republicans are made up of a bunch of religious people who need israel to "start end times" or whatever, and that involves hating muslims. But then there's the anti-semites. They coexist and are a primary reason donald trump's both terms exist.
Just so I'm certain I understand, you think the reason Donald trump got elected is because you think the republicans want to end the world and need Israel to start the process for them? But you also think trump leveraged anti semitism too pull in another demographic?
I don't recall either of these two things being election issues.
yes, you seem to pay zero attention to the nazis and the prosperity gospels influence on politics.
I'm sure you feel proud of yourself for not payin attention to any of the media consumption of the far right.
Congrats.
Sorry last post errored, just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon. And also they are pushing SCOTUS to replace 1st Amendment with IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
What lead you to believe this? Got a link from a reputable source?
> just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon
This court decision wasn't about legalizing Roundup. Roundup was already 100% legal before this court decision, so there is zero reason for anyone to have pushed this court to legalize it. Even if the US suddenly decided to make Roundup illegal to use, in what way would that prevent Israel (or any other country outside of the US) from using it? Not only is what you are saying factually wrong, it wouldn't make any sense even if it were true.