Octopus Overlords

I'm pretty sure. His public statements are something else. He is a real problem. That's why Steve Vladeck is right. SCOTUS is highly political now and they know this is too far. They will make the right calculation.



Interesting that even staunch conservatives are calling this game outright now. These christofascists or whatever we want to call them have reached the end of credulity now. We will soon find out how far and how ruthless they are willing to be.

This is all so beyond fucked up. People are not going to allow a single judge in TX to overrule an FDA decision that's more than two decades old. I don't think state governments will either. I agree that the Supreme Court is going to come to that conclusion and course correct.

A federal judge suspends FDA's longtime approval of abortion pill, but gives the government 7 days to appeal


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 10d2&ei=15

This disgusts me, I spent my entire career in the sciences and most of it in the pharma industry. I am appalled with this intervention into FDA. When do the pitchforks come out?

I was trying to figure out where the other case came from. It's either extremely clever or just the world's best coincidence. The other case is appears to be a complaint fighting a rule change that affected the drug's usage which led to the judge's very conveniently timed injunction to stay the rule change. I suspect it's going to be a heck of a story (for a legal struggle at least) when the dust settles.

RM2 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:20 pmWhen do the pitchforks come out?

This is the right question. I think we're nearing a limit. Every day we're seeing increasing abuses of power from the GOP across a broad spectrum. Eventually it was going to or will lead to conflict. This is but a warning shot that the wheels are coming off.

Edit: Just as an example I am seeing some pretty far out winks and nods to political violence tonight. There is definitely a sense that they've gone too far and people are preparing to potentially fight. For example, you have implication like this from someone who is highly influential in the Garland will make this right camp. It's getting crazy.

FWIW, conservatives themselves (or at least some of their pundits) are starting to panic over abortion restrictions.

They see that every post-Dobbs election where abortion was even remotely involved has resulted in unexpected Democratic victories. They're starting to realize that they are the dog who caught the car.

I would hate to see it , it is not good for anyone living in the country and I do not support it. But I am afraid you are right malchior and we may be getting close.

Holman wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:30 pm FWIW, conservatives themselves (or at least some of their pundits) are starting to panic over abortion restrictions.

They see that every post-Dobbs election where abortion was even remotely involved has resulted in unexpected Democratic victories. They're starting to realize that they are the dog who caught the car.

I agree and people are unfortunately assuming it'll lead to a lawful or peaceful correction. We can not assume that any longer. That is why I am watching to see how far the GOP is willing to go because it seems like as they get cornered they may get ever more dangerous. Risk levels are rising quickly.

And naturally the NY Times released a sympathetic soft touch piece on Kacsmaryk that manages to avoid talking to the abuses of power except for a quick reference to the judge shopping and a single one line of commentary from a political activist who criticized him. Otherwise, it's all quotes from people who support Kacsmaryk. About a dozen in support. They are in full self-parody mode here.

They also have a paired article about the ruling that manages to be factually correct while also managing to be mostly context-free about how out of control this ruling is. I've said it over and over but the NY Times does not inform readers anymore. It has become a security blanket for people afraid to confront the reality of how things are off the rails in this nation.

Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk and his wife, Shelly Kacsmaryk, were devastated when their first child, a girl they named Tyndale, was stillborn.

It was 2006 and a searing, formative experience for Judge Kacsmaryk, then a lawyer at the prominent Texas firm Baker Botts. He became involved in and later served on the board of a Texas Christian organization that provides housing and adoption services to women with unplanned pregnancies as an alternative to abortion.

“Matthew and Shelly’s first child was stillborn, and I think that contributed to his interest in wanting to support women in all kinds of ways, but most especially when they are pregnant,” said Sherri Statler, the president and chief executive of the group, Christian Homes & Family Services in Abilene. “They often feel pressured into getting an abortion until they find out there is an organization that will support them through their pregnancy.”

...

The case has put a spotlight on Judge Kacsmaryk, 45, a Trump appointee whose conservative views have prompted accusations that anti-abortion groups judge-shopped to find a sympathetic jurist to limit access to medication abortion — allegations that lawyers for the plaintiffs have denied. The focus only intensified after the judge, in a highly unusual move, asked lawyers in the case not to publicize a hearing. He cited death threats, harassing calls and concerns of a “circuslike atmosphere.”

Never change NYT, never change.

The President of the AMA has issued a statement:



Can't unroll because that API no longer works with Twitter. Thanks Elmo, you douche.

Today’s court decision in Texas staying longstanding approval of mifepristone flies in the face of science and evidence and threatens to upend access to a safe and effective drug that has been used by millions of people for more than 20 years. The court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation. By rejecting medical facts, the court has intruded into the exam room and intervened in decisions that belong to patients & physicians. The court’s rebuff of scientific facts also undermines informed decisions, erodes trust in institutions, exacerbates social divides, and places individual and collective health at risk. Additionally, this decision introduces the extraordinary, unprecedented danger of courts upending longstanding drug regulatory decisions by the FDA. Doing so goes against the established scientific process that leads to those decisions and puts other drugs at risk of being subject to similar efforts. Substituting the opinions of individual judges and courts in place of extensive, evidence-based, scientific review of efficacy and safety through well-established FDA processes is reckless and dangerous.

Time to reform how cases are assigned so this level of judge shopping can no longer occur. If Chief Justice Roberts will not do it, Congress will need to act.

Zarathud wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 10:50 pm Time to reform how cases are assigned so this level of judge shopping can no longer occur. If Chief Justice Roberts will not do it, Congress will need to act.

Unfortunately Congress probably won't act. Everything is in an interlocking state of dysfunction and inaction helps the attack.

malchior wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 11:05 pm

Zarathud wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 10:50 pm Time to reform how cases are assigned so this level of judge shopping can no longer occur. If Chief Justice Roberts will not do it, Congress will need to act.

Unfortunately Congress probably won't act. Everything is in an interlocking state of dysfunction and inaction helps the attack.

Congress can't do squat because there are 11 more Republicans than it can cope with. (Well, more like 111, but that's just my opinion, man.)

Zarathud wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 10:50 pm Time to reform how cases are assigned so this level of judge shopping can no longer occur. If Chief Justice Roberts will not do it, Congress will need to act.

This isn't an assignment issue and it's not something Roberts has any control over. This is a Northern District of Texas issue. Kacsmaryk is the only judge sitting in the Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas, so if you file there, you know that's who you're going to get. There's no one else to assign the case to.

And they know that. This shit was cooked up the minute Kacsmaryk got the appointment and probably before.

malchior wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:24 pm

RM2 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:20 pmWhen do the pitchforks come out?

This is the right question. I think we're nearing a limit. Every day we're seeing increasing abuses of power from the GOP across a broad spectrum. Eventually it was going to or will lead to conflict. This is but a warning shot that the wheels are coming off.

Edit: Just as an example I am seeing some pretty far out winks and nods to political violence tonight. There is definitely a sense that they've gone too far and people are preparing to potentially fight. For example, you have implication like this from someone who is highly influential in the Garland will make this right camp. It's getting crazy.

I agree. We're getting very, very close.

There's an off-ramp here, and that's if this ass-clown judge gets overturned on appeal. I have very little faith in the 5th Circuit at this point, but I do have hopes that the Supreme Court is going to see which way the wind is blowing and course correct to avert disaster.

Because, make no mistake, if this shit doesn't get overturned, disaster is coming. It's one thing to overturn Roe and kick things back to the states. It's a whole other thing to have some judge sitting in Amarillo tell the entire nation that the medical abortion pills they've been receiving for the past 2 decades are no longer legal. If that doesn't get turned around, the pitchforks are coming out. No question.

malchior wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:51 pm And naturally the NY Times released a sympathetic soft touch piece on Kacsmaryk that manages to avoid talking to the abuses of power except for a quick reference to the judge shopping and a single one line of commentary from a political activist who criticized him. Otherwise, it's all quotes from people who support Kacsmaryk. About a dozen in support. They are in full self-parody mode here.

They also have a paired article about the ruling that manages to be factually correct while also managing to be mostly context-free about how out of control this ruling is. I've said it over and over but the NY Times does not inform readers anymore. It has become a security blanket for people afraid to confront the reality of how things are off the rails in this nation.

Sorry for the serial posts. Busy day and just catching up with some of this.

I read the NYT article about Kacsmaryk. For the most part, I thought it painted him as he likely is: A pro-life true-believer. I could do without the seemingly credulous quoting of his colleagues and friends who say he's a by-the-book jurist given that he just pretty much tossed the book out a window, ran it over with a truck and then set it on fire. But, for the most part, I didn't come away thinking he was anything but what he is: a right-wing, pro-life ideologue.

That said, one point in that article really bothered me (more than the credulous quoting):

The case has put a spotlight on Judge Kacsmaryk, 45, a Trump appointee whose conservative views have prompted accusations that anti-abortion groups judge-shopped to find a sympathetic jurist to limit access to medication abortion — allegations that lawyers for the plaintiffs have denied.

WTF? "Accusations" of judge-shopping? Are you kidding me, NYT? There's no plausible argument that they are not judge-shopping here.

And, even better, the NYT links to a Fox News piece to back up the "denials" that these anti-abortion zealots (in typical Orwellian fashion, dubbed, the "Alliance Defending Freedom") were judge-shopping. What's even more absurd is that the Fox News piece is probably more clear and objective about the judge-shopping than the NYT. Sure, they quote the ADF and their judge-shopping denials, but those denials are so patently weak that any objective person reading the Fox piece would see right through them:

"We're very confident that any judge who looks at the FDA regulations and what the FDA actually did is going to rule for us," ADF's Center for Life Director Denise Harle told Fox News in response to the forum shopping accusations. "That's what we're looking for, just a fair trial, a fair opportunity to make our arguments to the court."

The fact that the NYT is sending its readers to Fox News to get reporting on the basis of the "accusation" of judge-shopping and the subsequent denial here is unreal.

RM2 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:20 pm A federal judge suspends FDA's longtime approval of abortion pill, but gives the government 7 days to appeal


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 10d2&ei=15

This disgusts me, I spent my entire career in the sciences and most of it in the pharma industry. I am appalled with this intervention into FDA. When do the pitchforks come out?

And if this drug is invalidated because of this sort if approval how many others like Covid vaccines are also invalidated?

Kurth wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 3:08 am

malchior wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:51 pm And naturally the NY Times released a sympathetic soft touch piece on Kacsmaryk that manages to avoid talking to the abuses of power except for a quick reference to the judge shopping and a single one line of commentary from a political activist who criticized him. Otherwise, it's all quotes from people who support Kacsmaryk. About a dozen in support. They are in full self-parody mode here.

They also have a paired article about the ruling that manages to be factually correct while also managing to be mostly context-free about how out of control this ruling is. I've said it over and over but the NY Times does not inform readers anymore. It has become a security blanket for people afraid to confront the reality of how things are off the rails in this nation.

Sorry for the serial posts. Busy day and just catching up with some of this.

I read the NYT article about Kacsmaryk. For the most part, I thought it painted him as he likely is: A pro-life true-believer. I could do without the seemingly credulous quoting of his colleagues and friends who say he's a by-the-book jurist given that he just pretty much tossed the book out a window, ran it over with a truck and then set it on fire. But, for the most part, I didn't come away thinking he was anything but what he is: a right-wing, pro-life ideologue.

Oh they for sure captured that. So much of that. My issue is the astonishing lack of context. I have no problem with him being a right-wing, pro-life ideologue or them portraying that sympathetically. My problem is that you don't even get a hint that he uses that as the basis for his judicial decision making instead of the law. And this wasn't the only case he has presided over where he acted radically in that direction. I'd never know any of that if I didn't read more accurate sources of information. It's a damn shame. I pick on them for a reason. They do this often enough that I can't see output like this as anything but a choice.

The fact that the NYT is sending its readers to Fox News to get reporting on the basis of the "accusation" of judge-shopping and the subsequent denial here is unreal.

I didn't even see that (went back and saw the link - so thanks!) but that makes the whole thing even more indefensible. There is just something wrong with the place. I keep being struck by the idea about it being a security blanket, living in the clouds, or even worse cynically hedging against the possibility the GOP ends our democracy. I don't know but the NY Times does weird shit sometimes that defies simple explanation.

waitingtoconnect wrote:

waitingtoconnect wrote:
And if this drug is invalidated because of this sort if approval how many others like Covid vaccines are also invalidated?

You have hit upon one of my major concerns, does this make it more likely for greater political influence in the drug approval process?

waitingtoconnect wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 3:11 am

RM2 wrote: Fri Apr 07, 2023 8:20 pm A federal judge suspends FDA's longtime approval of abortion pill, but gives the government 7 days to appeal


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 10d2&ei=15

This disgusts me, I spent my entire career in the sciences and most of it in the pharma industry. I am appalled with this intervention into FDA. When do the pitchforks come out?

And if this drug is invalidated because of this sort if approval how many others like Covid vaccines are also invalidated?

[2026 GOP candidate]
"GOD created Polio! Who are WE to stand against the will of GOD??"
[\2026 GOP candidate]

Yeah, I'm guessing they can start randomly removing medications that were "derived from fetal stem cells", perhaps omitting (or adding) information as they see fit to further a narrative = like they're doing in FL right now with COVID-19 vaccines. We're entering a whole new phase if this doesn't get squashed, though the fact that it even came to this point is bananas.

Having Polio Was a Privilege, Not a Punishment (2021)

RM2 wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 4:44 pm waitingtoconnect wrote:

waitingtoconnect wrote:
And if this drug is invalidated because of this sort if approval how many others like Covid vaccines are also invalidated?

You have hit upon one of my major concerns, does this make it more likely for greater political influence in the drug approval process?

Some people are already saying that most fda approvals are unconstitutional as they were not made by someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and rather lifetime employees. Others would prefer the whole agency and most federal agencies like the Fbi to also be ruled unconstitutional.

https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/ ... itutional/

I guess we will all be injecting ourselves with bleach soon.

The Maga Republican backers want to eliminate federal agencies that hold them in check. The Food part of the FDA, the environment part of the EPA, and of course the post office which offers competition to transport companies and holds a floor on prices.

Getting rid of the Fbi and DoJ eliminates that pesky risk of prosecution.

This isn’t about abortion at all. It’s about mass deregulation so a bunch of super rich folks and megacorps can make profits.

waitingtoconnect wrote: Sun Apr 09, 2023 11:39 pm

RM2 wrote: Sat Apr 08, 2023 4:44 pm waitingtoconnect wrote:

waitingtoconnect wrote:
And if this drug is invalidated because of this sort if approval how many others like Covid vaccines are also invalidated?

You have hit upon one of my major concerns, does this make it more likely for greater political influence in the drug approval process?

Some people are already saying that most fda approvals are unconstitutional as they were not made by someone appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate and rather lifetime employees. Others would prefer the whole agency and most federal agencies like the Fbi to also be ruled unconstitutional.

https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/ ... itutional/

I guess we will all be injecting ourselves with bleach soon.

The Maga Republican backers want to eliminate federal agencies that hold them in check. The Food part of the FDA, the environment part of the EPA, and of course the post office which offers competition to transport companies and holds a floor on prices.

Getting rid of the Fbi and DoJ eliminates that pesky risk of prosecution.

This isn’t about abortion at all. It’s about mass deregulation so a bunch of super rich folks and megacorps can make profits.

ATF too:

Missouri officials in one county have refused to work with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, claiming that the government agency is unconstitutional.

Six top elected officials in Camden County signed a letter to the ATF saying as much, according to the NPR affiliate KCUR 89.3.

"Under the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, Camden County was the first county in Missouri, and possibly in the country, to pass an ordinance prohibiting any county employee from assisting your unconstitutional agency in violating the rights of our citizens," Ike Skelton, the county's presiding commissioner, said in the letter.

https://www.businessinsider.com/missour ... nal-2023-4


Seems like the new standard playbook.

5th Circuit predictably does crazy things with the FDA ruling too. They are just making it up as they go along.

The Justice Department said Thursday that it will appeal to the Supreme Court a lower court decision that let the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone remain in effect but imposed strict restrictions on the drug's use.

The appellate judges allowed the FDA's authorization to remain in place, meaning mifepristone is still available in the U.S. However, it imposed strict restrictions.

Only qualified physicians can dispense the pill and patients have to access it in person, not by mail.

Additionally, the generic version of mifepristone's approval is suspended and the drug can only be taken within the first seven weeks of pregnancy, instead of the previous 10 weeks that the FDA originally approved.

I don't see how the SC can wait to take the case as there is still a circuit split between the 5th Circuit and that one in the Pacific NW that said the FDA had to keep access.

News from the Supreme Court:

BREAKING: Justice Samuel Alito issues an administrative stay blocking restrictions on abortion pills that were set to take effect tonight. The order puts everything on hold through April 19 to allow briefing and give other justices time to weigh in.

In normal times this would get shot down in seconds. Now? Who the hell knows?

People need to understand whether you agree with abortion or not for dealing with unwanted pregnancy that without access to these drugs and services instances of wanted pregnancies where things go wrong will not be able to be legally helped.

In case of miscarriage or still birth these drugs and procedures are needed.

This WILL cost women their lives.

Another day in paradise...

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

...

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal who had been working with Kacsmaryk received an unusual email: Citing “reasons I may discuss at a later date,” Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute, according to emails and early drafts obtained by The Washington Post.

What Kacsmaryk did not say in the email was that he had already been interviewed for a judgeship by his state’s two senators and was awaiting an interview at the White House.

As part of that process, he was required to list all of his published work on a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including “books, articles, reports, letters to the editor, editorial pieces, or other published material you have written or edited.”

waitingtoconnect wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 4:10 am People need to understand whether you agree with abortion or not for dealing with unwanted pregnancy that without access to these drugs and services instances of wanted pregnancies where things go wrong will not be able to be legally helped.

In case of miscarriage or still birth these drugs and procedures are needed.

This WILL cost women their lives.

Not to let women who support these measures off the hook but with the predominance of men in the legislature and governor's office I don't think that women's lives really figured into their decisions, especially with their lack of understanding about female biology. They are like fucking schoolkids who are all "Ewww, women stuff!" and their lack of a uterus makes them rather indifferent to the health issues women face when complications arise.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:13 pm Another day in paradise...

I've now seen threats of political assassination in the comments of an article in Washington Post. People really are getting fed up with all of this.

You cannot just ban these drugs because abortion.

Many drugs have other uses. misoprostol for example prevents stomach ulcers. Misoprostol is only approved by the FDA for the treatment of stomach ulcers so its use of label by doctors for abortion is based on WHO recommendations instead. .

The use of drugs for off-label indications is legal, common practice, and not considered experimental if based on sound scientific evidence. Drug licensing is not proof of effectiveness and many drugs of proven efficacy are not licensed.

In theory you could see this drugs approval attacked also by extremism.

One fun legal truck could be to get the Supreme Court to rule that drugs can only be used for their fda approved purpose then use another legal trick to disallow that approval!!

mifepristone is a drug that has more benefits than just safe abortion. It has been shown in numerous studies to help women safely treat an incomplete miscarriage and is now used off label for this purpose. Studies have also shown mifepristone to be helpful with labor induction, increasing the safety of the delivery process for someone who does continue with a pregnancy.

Well, there is always choice #3.

Alito signs an order moving the new deadline to Friday. Very cool. Very serious.

Edit: Some folks are taking bets on who is writing a dissent right now. I think it's Thomas on speed dial after a quick conference with Harlan Crow. J/k...sorta.

Moving a deadline suggests to me they're going to uphold the ban but aren't sure the best way to argue it. Need some time to wordsmith and hope that a Friday night release diminishes civil unrest.

I'm not too worried about civil unrest. We may very well see states openly importing the drugs from Canada or whatever hell breaks loose at the state level.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 3:59 pm Moving a deadline suggests to me they're going to uphold the ban but aren't sure the best way to argue it. Need some time to wordsmith and hope that a Friday night release diminishes civil unrest.

Me too.

malchior wrote: Wed Apr 19, 2023 4:36 pm I'm not too worried about civil unrest. We may very well see states openly importing the drugs from Canada or whatever hell breaks loose at the state level.

Mass. has already stockpiled a 2-year supply...however much that is.