Current Events > SCOTUS lets mifepristone stand

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/drugmaker-asks-supreme-court-block-abortion-pill-ruling-rcna79694

If I missed this, thread URL please.

I'm moderately bothered by this, not even out of any sense of the abortion argument. But why have an FDA if a judge can go "Naaaaah" and throw out the decisions and research of the people who are supposed to approve that drugs are safe?

Crazyman93 posted...

But why have an FDA

I'll argue why a regulatory bureaucracy should exist, but it does, and the same SCOTUS that did Dobbs is defining Dobbs.

Questionmarktarius posted...

I'll argue why a regulatory bureaucracy should exist, but it does, and the same SCOTUS that did Dobbs is defining Dobbs.

There's some flippancy in my statement. I would agree the FDA needs to exist, and generally there aren't that many good reasons for the courts to throw out their decisions.

Most of my arguments against regulatory bureaucracy stem from them seeming to forget their job is to enforce laws, not redefine them.

Crazyman93 posted...

Most of my arguments against regulatory bureaucracy stem from them seeming to forget their job is to enforce laws, not redefine them.

My arguments against regulatory bureaucracy is that no punitive means can exist apart from Article 1

Fair enough. I can see how it comes to exist though. You need someone in charge of enforcing a law you set out. Say "all milk must be pasteurized for sale." So you create "the milk pasteurization task force" to enforce that. Then you say "all meat must be prepared for sale based on these requirements" and then you make the "meat preparation task force". And so on down the line, and eventually someone goes "We could probably merge a bunch of these to save time and money on redundant functions". And then the US Patent office has an agricultural division, and then it gets so big it becomes the US Department of Agriculture.

Good.