29 points

I’m torn on this one. Obviously, the victims deserve to get payment and whatnot, but the other half of this is that the bankruptcy court agreement with the Sackler family would prevent them from future liability for similar cases. Supreme Court is saying the bankruptcy court didn’t have the power to grant that, which, if excluded, would open the Sacklers to future lawsuits. I’m all for that family getting sued into oblivion, but we can’t trust the Supreme Court to do what’s right either. We have to treat everything they do with suspicion. This comes on the heels of the ruling of ‘bribery is now basically legal’, so it makes me wonder how much the Sackler family is paying them.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Far too many wealthy people have forgotten the alternative to these processes of checks and balances. And too often they get away with little to no damages done to them. As QoL continues to plummet, they will eventually push someone with nothing to lose.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Because of fucking course

Who will we blame our problems on if we just go and start taking steps towards solving them

permalink
report
reply

It was rejected because the settlement would have made the company bulletproof against any further civil suits and effectively left the most villainous people with billions of dollars

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Do you have source for this so I can learn more?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Yes. It says it quite clearly in the article above. That’s where I read it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

But they bankrupted their shell company and paid like 250,000 5 years ago what more could you monsters want‽

/s

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This is the best summary I could come up with:


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.

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

The high court had put the settlement on hold last summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.

Arguments in early December lasted nearly two hours in a packed courtroom as the justices seemed, by turns, unwilling to disrupt a carefully negotiated settlement and reluctant to reward the Sacklers.

The Purdue Pharma settlement would have ranked among the largest reached by drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies to resolve epidemic-related lawsuits filed by state, local and Native American tribal governments and others.

Sackler family members no longer are on the company’s board, and they have not received payouts from it since before Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy.


The original article contains 848 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

permalink
report
reply
2 points

I was all ready for outrage, but I think maybe they got this one right. Equality under the law should mean that the top of a pyramid is treated the same as the bottom.

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 331K

    Comments