Does it bother you that "We the People" have no say in the doings of the Supreme Court? such as...?

Question

...passing a ruling that you can’t sue a manufacturer for a defective medical device if the Food and Drug Administration has already approved the device.

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/2236/the-supreme-court-v-reality-fda-version

Congress also provided immunity to vaccine manufacturers who claimed they could not economically manufacture vaccines with the threat of liability hanging over them.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/18/1883

Answer 1

The reason you don't have a say in the SUPREME COURT is because the CONSTITUTION was setup that way.

Once their in ---their in for life--this is to prevent them from being pressured politically, and to provide a stable society based on of law over decades of rulings.  

It's supposed to provide stability.  

So we don't get to far from the original intent of the Constitution to fast.

Answer 2

Ye, it's a stacked right wing political court. It's a big lie when they say that justice is free of politics. Let's elect Obama and reverse their anti people trend.

Answer 3

IN DEMOCRACY PEOPLE HAVE  FULL RIGHTS BUT THESE RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXERCISED IN THE PROPER COSTITUTIONAL MANNER

IF NOT POSSIBLE THEN PUBLIC OPINION THRU MEDIA OR SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS CAN SOLVE THE ISSUE.

Answer 4

Bush's court always sides with big money and against citizens.  What a travesty.  Both parties are to blame because Congress did not have to approve their nominations.  We are not a democracy.

Answer 5

Do you know those wonderful trail lawyers that sue vaccine makers that we no longer make it here because of those law suits?

Did you know that the trail lawyers bringing those cases cut is 70% or greater of the reward in some cases all of it goes to the lawyers?

Did you know those law suits drive up the cost of drugs to cover the liability?

The reason why drugs don't cost that much in Europe is because people don't sue drug manufactures like they do here.

Did you know that when those big pay outs the first thing big pharma cuts is R&D so the new drugs  will have to wait and people will die because they are waiting for the manufactures to get the money to bring them to market delay by law suits?

The courts have gotten out of control and you think it is a big lotto.

Well someone has to pay for those awards and it is all of us.

I happen think this is a good thing.

Hopefully all those with some basic understanding of how things work do too!

Answer 6

That's disgusting--these seem like some of the worst times when it comes to our rights (to get justice and recover what we can while punishing corporations for criminal negligence) and our safety.  The right of corporations to make profits--even if it means "collateral damage"--over the lives of Americans seems to be the top priority of government today!  I'd like to see who voted yes on that bill!

Answer 7

Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  If you don't like the current court's direction, vote!  Get more involved!  Stop electing anyone who says he'll appoint "strict constructionists judges" - this is just code for "judges who always rule against the little guy."

Edit: The whole point of the Supreme Court is that they are free to make the right decisions, and not necessarily the popular ones.  That's why they have life terms.  But if our government breaks down, like it has under the Republicans, then the result is that extremists get appointed to the Court.  Extremists like Roberts or Thomas, both of whom actually lied to the Senate during their confirmation hearings.

There is no way to make the Court accountable to the people without also breaking the entire point of having a Supreme Court.  The only way to make the Court not suck is to make sure that we elect ethical politicians who don't make Supreme Court appointments about political litmus tests and all about legal qualifications.

Answer 8

The defective medical device case was an instance of the Supreme Court trying to figure out what Congress did in cases where Congress was unclear. You may not like the choices the Supreme Court made, but it's erroneous to say the people can't do anything about it. Congress can change the laws if they think the Supreme Court understood them incorrectly.

As for Congress providing immunity to vaccine manufacturers, what's your problem with that? You think possibly unsafe vaccines are worse than no vaccines? (If you don't think a vaccine is sufficiently safe, you don't have to use it.)

By the way, to give you the other take on the defective medical device case -- what if the FDA *forces* you to produce a device a particular way (which they in fact do). Why should you be held responsible if that way turns out to be wrong or unsafe? It wasn't your decision.

To respond to your edit, corporations are just groups of people. If you look at the owners, operators, employees, and customers of corporations, they're all people.

In any event, liability for suit just means that companies build the costs of those suits into the cost of products. I think the average person benefits a lot more from cheaper vaccines and cheaper medical devices than they do from the possibility that they'll die from a defective vaccine or medical device and their heirs will get a multi-million dollar jackpot.