4 ms·

Supreme Court Gives Pesticide Corporations Immunity from Cancer Lawsuits

31 points by mikhael 3mo ago

cyanydeez 3mo ago
...Health Insurance industry celebrates long term reliance goals.
ggoo 3mo ago
Absolute disgrace.
monirmamoun 3mo ago
[flagged]
- pipes 3mo ago
  Where is the evidence for your Jewish conspiracy theory?
  - cyanydeez 3mo ago
    the Mommy and Daddy racist are fighting again.
    - pipes 3mo ago
      What do you mean?
      - cyanydeez 3mo ago
        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.
        pipes 3mo ago
        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.
        cyanydeez 3mo ago
        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.
monirmamoun 3mo ago
[flagged]
- autoexec 3mo ago
  > 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.
- schainks 3mo ago
  What lead you to believe this? Got a link from a reputable source?
gruez 3mo ago
Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell 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.
- withinboredom 3mo ago
  The best kind of correct.
- cherry_tree 3mo ago
  > In a 7-2 decision issued in June 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer and Mosanto, ruling that the Montana state law cannot coerce the labeling of Roundup as containing carcinogens since federal regulators have not identified a connection. The ruling overturned a prior jury award and is expected to end most other ongoing litigation over Roundup. Another anti-states right ruling that will be championed by the states rights crowd. As long as it’s in corporate interests, states have no rights.
Legend2440 3mo ago
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?
_--__--__ 3mo ago
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.
- IAmBroom 3mo ago
  Counterpoint: SCOTUS has been shockingly willing to side with the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch's Republican majority has shown it is willing to fellate the POTUS at every instance. Our so-called balance of powers does not currently exist in practice. That being said, this ruling is, as another poster pointed out, confirmation of the supremacy of federal regulations over state law.
  - _--__--__ 3mo ago
    Do you seriously believe that the EPA is deferential to the current Republican coalition, and that it has been over the past few decades when it was asked to reconsider glyphosate multiple times? The IARC reclassification that kicked off these Roundup lawsuits was in 2015. Would you prefer to live in a country where the Supreme Court was ruling against federal regulatory agencies and in favor of one off state laws? I think you'd find some uneasy political bedfellows.

31 points by mikhael 3mo ago

cyanydeez 3mo ago

...Health Insurance industry celebrates long term reliance goals.

ggoo 3mo ago

Absolute disgrace.

monirmamoun 3mo ago

[flagged]

pipes 3mo ago
Where is the evidence for your Jewish conspiracy theory?
- cyanydeez 3mo ago
  the Mommy and Daddy racist are fighting again.
  - pipes 3mo ago
    What do you mean?
    - cyanydeez 3mo ago
      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.
      - pipes 3mo ago
        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.
        cyanydeez 3mo ago
        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.

monirmamoun 3mo ago

[flagged]

autoexec 3mo ago
> 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.
schainks 3mo ago
What lead you to believe this? Got a link from a reputable source?

gruez 3mo ago

Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell 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.

withinboredom 3mo ago
The best kind of correct.
cherry_tree 3mo ago
> In a 7-2 decision issued in June 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bayer and Mosanto, ruling that the Montana state law cannot coerce the labeling of Roundup as containing carcinogens since federal regulators have not identified a connection. The ruling overturned a prior jury award and is expected to end most other ongoing litigation over Roundup. Another anti-states right ruling that will be championed by the states rights crowd. As long as it’s in corporate interests, states have no rights.

Legend2440 3mo ago

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?

_--__--__ 3mo ago

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.

IAmBroom 3mo ago
Counterpoint: SCOTUS has been shockingly willing to side with the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch's Republican majority has shown it is willing to fellate the POTUS at every instance. Our so-called balance of powers does not currently exist in practice. That being said, this ruling is, as another poster pointed out, confirmation of the supremacy of federal regulations over state law.
- _--__--__ 3mo ago
  Do you seriously believe that the EPA is deferential to the current Republican coalition, and that it has been over the past few decades when it was asked to reconsider glyphosate multiple times? The IARC reclassification that kicked off these Roundup lawsuits was in 2015. Would you prefer to live in a country where the Supreme Court was ruling against federal regulatory agencies and in favor of one off state laws? I think you'd find some uneasy political bedfellows.