this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024

84 points (100.0% liked)

News

23609 readers

4439 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

The Supreme Court rejects a nationwide opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma (apnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Wilshire to c/news

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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. The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said “nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.”

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Can you please just tell me if it is a good thing or a bad thing please, the more I read the more I am simply confused.

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. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.

The Biden administration had argued to the court that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.

Okay got it

[–] disguy_ovahea 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It’s both. Sort of an election dependent Schrödinger’s cat. The settlement amount was far too low in relation to the damage caused and the profits earned, so the immunity from future settlements was absurd. However, if Trump wins in the fall, there’s no way his new Project 2025 Schedule F hires will bring appropriate charges against a business doing business.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You’re not wrong. At the same time, if Trump wins, the idea that the Sacklers might get away with effectively homicide on a multi billion dollar heroin dealing scale, won’t be even in the top 100 problems. “How can we punish the guilty” will have to take a back seat to “how can I prevent the guilty from directly threatening my safety or maybe putting me in prison” for a little while.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 5 months ago

That’s exactly what they’re counting on. The same goes for 3M and Boeing.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (3 children)

The Sacklers should be slow-roasted over hot coals, so I am not sure how to feel about this

[–] dogslayeggs 9 points 5 months ago

The current deal allowed them to avoid any criminal liability and keep all the billions they made. It just made them lose their company.

I think this ruling is good, since it opens the family up to criminal liability and possibly losing billions of dollars.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I'm kinda into the "cruel and unusual" punishment of giving them their own medicine, literally. Make them drooling messes of human beings and put them on display.

[–] RizzRustbolt 2 points 5 months ago

There's only one death penalty that I support. And it's deep-frying.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

“The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country,” they said in a statement. “While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward.”

We tried to buy our way out because we’re guilty af, but failed.

I agree with another poster that I’m not sure how I feel about this. If this results in them taking greater responsibility for the harm they’ve done, great. If this ends up letting them off easier, travesty.

[–] cheese_greater 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Good SCOTUS

[–] xhieron 15 points 5 months ago

Broken clock's right twice a day, etc. A glimmer of light in an otherwise abysmally dark day in US jurisprudence.