5 ms·

>Supreme Court might be sympathetic to some of the industry’s arguments No surprise here, the US Supreme Court is now just like the rest of the US Gov, they ar

by jmclnx 3y ago

>Supreme Court might be sympathetic to some of the industry’s arguments No surprise here, the US Supreme Court is now just like the rest of the US Gov, they are very happy to take bribes. And due to how the US Gov is structured, no way to stop them from holding out their hand. So getting appointed to that Court is a great gig, you do not even have to care about the law these days.

paulddraper 3y ago
> no way to stop them from holding out their hand Same as for any other official: impeachment
scrubs 3y ago
The Supreme court is/will be bounded by the fact the inflation reduction act is law. This isn't like abortion where there is no federal law passed by congress and signed by the president. I'm very happy to see this. And surely pricing transparency is good: we're gonna see just how this works. Further I'm glad the US government is challenging corporate America. Corporations implicitly threaten the US public saying if minimum wage goes up they'll be forced to cut jobs. They implicitly threaten a leaner pipeline of drug advances if prices are negioated down. Let's see how this cookie crumbles. The US congress is explicitly tasked with the federal checkbook. Negotiating prices down is clearly in their purview and is consistent with agency they've always had. Has congress ever negotiated a price with defense, office supply chains? Has the congress solicited competitive bids on work? Then why not meds?
- jfengel 3y ago
  The Supreme Court has the authority to strike down any law it finds unconstitutional. It may have to work slightly harder, but I have no doubt that they can find grounds on which the Inflation Reduction Act is unconstitutional. In fact, googling those last five words turns up an industry lawsuit alleging precisely that: https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines/NICA-GCCA-PhRMA-Litigation-Asserts-Price-Setting-Provisions-in-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-are-Unconstitutional https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines... I am certain that some members of the Court will agree, and others will not. It will come down to a count of votes. And I strongly doubt that I will agree with the reasoning that justifies those votes, either way.
synetic 3y ago
Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts.
- _dujt 3y ago
  I imagine by the time a lawyer is experienced enough to be given a seat at the Supreme Court that they’re well past the point of needing an income. With that being said, I’m not surprised in the slightest someone as corrupt as Thomas would have this opinion. Ginni Thomas and Clarence’s defense of her has forever tarnished the reputation of the Supreme Court and I don’t want to hear another word from his office. His replacement honestly cannot come soon enough.
- callmeal 3y ago
  > Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts^H^H^H^H^H bribes. FTFY. As of 2022, the salary of a US Supreme Court Justice is $274,200 per year. The Chief Justice of the United States, who is the head of the Supreme Court, receives a slightly higher salary of $286,700 per year. Of course no one will take that job. How much does a banana cost again? $10?
  - kelipso 3y ago
    Yeah, how many millions of government employees and contractors who have to be under very strict gift policies and much lower salaries. Somehow they stay in their jobs without taking bribes.
    - scrubs 3y ago
      Bingo. Once again rules are different for the powerful. I don't buy it for a minute.
    - selectodude 3y ago
      Frankly it's unreasonable that a supreme court justice should be expected to only have two modest homes instead of three enormous ones.
mc32 3y ago
The gov should do what Singapore does: pay senior officials well but exterminate any sort of non monetary perquisites and impeach or fire violators. Also ban any gov person from trading on insider info. Also, if I had it my way, no government person while in the employ of the gov, should be able to vote at the level they represent or work in. If they’re fed employees no voting in fed elections and so on. Yes, I know under our constitution this would violate their rights. But you know, one can wish. I see it as a conflict of interest.
- epistasis 3y ago
  For a long time, basic pride by Supreme Court justices kept this in check. But now it's time for external enforcement. There are too many justices who think that they embody law and order in themselves, and therefore no matter what they do they are obeying the law, since they are the law. Similar to most police forces these days.
  - refurb 3y ago
    For a long time, basic pride by Supreme Court justices kept this in check. That's incredibly naive. If anything politics and was dirtier in the past than the present. The media in the past did a great job of covering up things since they were so cozy with politicians. Read about some of the politics of the 1800's in the US and it's far worse than today.
  - Applejinx 3y ago
    Oh, they are, in theory and in practice. Their literal job is embodying law and order and they make up the rules, and everyone else is stuck with what they decree, handing down final decisions like legal Gods. I do not get how they then turn around and insist on also having uncountable wealth. Surely there are a lot of people who would be content with just having unaccountable power? Maybe they should make minimum wage, while also having final say over what law is.
andrei_says_ 3y ago
“Now”? Seems like this has been going on for a very long time. We started paying attention now. As for the US gov and institutionalized corruption I highly recommend Lester Lessig’s work around political donations reform as the first step to democracy in the US. We the people and the republic we must reclaim is an excellent summary of the issue and the solution: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...
- tebut 3y ago
  Yeah it turns out humans are mush and goo seeking to survive and propagate When exactly was this magical past where things were better, I wonder?
- dantheman 3y ago
  How about something far simpler - reduce to the us government to only enumerated powers. If they want to do something not enumerated pass an amendment.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    That would just end in a situation even worse than now - such a policy requires a government in the continental European parliamentary form to make sure the government always has a parliamentary backing.
    - nradov 3y ago
      No, actually it would be far superior. We should strictly limit the power of the Federal government to what was actually intended by the Founders instead of using the Commerce Clause as a loophole. Devolve everything else to the several states.
      - krapp 3y ago
        We tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation[0]. It was an unmitigated disaster, and the reason we have our current Constitution with power actually consolidated under a Federal government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

by jmclnx 3y ago

paulddraper 3y ago

> no way to stop them from holding out their hand Same as for any other official: impeachment

scrubs 3y ago

The Supreme court is/will be bounded by the fact the inflation reduction act is law. This isn't like abortion where there is no federal law passed by congress and signed by the president. I'm very happy to see this. And surely pricing transparency is good: we're gonna see just how this works. Further I'm glad the US government is challenging corporate America. Corporations implicitly threaten the US public saying if minimum wage goes up they'll be forced to cut jobs. They implicitly threaten a leaner pipeline of drug advances if prices are negioated down. Let's see how this cookie crumbles. The US congress is explicitly tasked with the federal checkbook. Negotiating prices down is clearly in their purview and is consistent with agency they've always had. Has congress ever negotiated a price with defense, office supply chains? Has the congress solicited competitive bids on work? Then why not meds?

jfengel 3y ago
The Supreme Court has the authority to strike down any law it finds unconstitutional. It may have to work slightly harder, but I have no doubt that they can find grounds on which the Inflation Reduction Act is unconstitutional. In fact, googling those last five words turns up an industry lawsuit alleging precisely that: https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines/NICA-GCCA-PhRMA-Litigation-Asserts-Price-Setting-Provisions-in-the-Inflation-Reduction-Act-are-Unconstitutional https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Access-to-Medicines... I am certain that some members of the Court will agree, and others will not. It will come down to a count of votes. And I strongly doubt that I will agree with the reasoning that justifies those votes, either way.

synetic 3y ago

Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts.

_dujt 3y ago
I imagine by the time a lawyer is experienced enough to be given a seat at the Supreme Court that they’re well past the point of needing an income. With that being said, I’m not surprised in the slightest someone as corrupt as Thomas would have this opinion. Ginni Thomas and Clarence’s defense of her has forever tarnished the reputation of the Supreme Court and I don’t want to hear another word from his office. His replacement honestly cannot come soon enough.
callmeal 3y ago
> Justice Thomas said (in 2001) that for the pay they receive no one would take the job if not for the gifts^H^H^H^H^H bribes. FTFY. As of 2022, the salary of a US Supreme Court Justice is $274,200 per year. The Chief Justice of the United States, who is the head of the Supreme Court, receives a slightly higher salary of $286,700 per year. Of course no one will take that job. How much does a banana cost again? $10?
- kelipso 3y ago
  Yeah, how many millions of government employees and contractors who have to be under very strict gift policies and much lower salaries. Somehow they stay in their jobs without taking bribes.
  - scrubs 3y ago
    Bingo. Once again rules are different for the powerful. I don't buy it for a minute.
  - selectodude 3y ago
    Frankly it's unreasonable that a supreme court justice should be expected to only have two modest homes instead of three enormous ones.

mc32 3y ago

The gov should do what Singapore does: pay senior officials well but exterminate any sort of non monetary perquisites and impeach or fire violators. Also ban any gov person from trading on insider info. Also, if I had it my way, no government person while in the employ of the gov, should be able to vote at the level they represent or work in. If they’re fed employees no voting in fed elections and so on. Yes, I know under our constitution this would violate their rights. But you know, one can wish. I see it as a conflict of interest.

epistasis 3y ago
For a long time, basic pride by Supreme Court justices kept this in check. But now it's time for external enforcement. There are too many justices who think that they embody law and order in themselves, and therefore no matter what they do they are obeying the law, since they are the law. Similar to most police forces these days.
- refurb 3y ago
  For a long time, basic pride by Supreme Court justices kept this in check. That's incredibly naive. If anything politics and was dirtier in the past than the present. The media in the past did a great job of covering up things since they were so cozy with politicians. Read about some of the politics of the 1800's in the US and it's far worse than today.
- Applejinx 3y ago
  Oh, they are, in theory and in practice. Their literal job is embodying law and order and they make up the rules, and everyone else is stuck with what they decree, handing down final decisions like legal Gods. I do not get how they then turn around and insist on also having uncountable wealth. Surely there are a lot of people who would be content with just having unaccountable power? Maybe they should make minimum wage, while also having final say over what law is.

andrei_says_ 3y ago

“Now”? Seems like this has been going on for a very long time. We started paying attention now. As for the US gov and institutionalized corruption I highly recommend Lester Lessig’s work around political donations reform as the first step to democracy in the US. We the people and the republic we must reclaim is an excellent summary of the issue and the solution: https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_...

tebut 3y ago
Yeah it turns out humans are mush and goo seeking to survive and propagate When exactly was this magical past where things were better, I wonder?
dantheman 3y ago
How about something far simpler - reduce to the us government to only enumerated powers. If they want to do something not enumerated pass an amendment.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  That would just end in a situation even worse than now - such a policy requires a government in the continental European parliamentary form to make sure the government always has a parliamentary backing.
  - nradov 3y ago
    No, actually it would be far superior. We should strictly limit the power of the Federal government to what was actually intended by the Founders instead of using the Commerce Clause as a loophole. Devolve everything else to the several states.
    - krapp 3y ago
      We tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation[0]. It was an unmitigated disaster, and the reason we have our current Constitution with power actually consolidated under a Federal government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation