Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Supreme Courts Justices' jobs found to only contain 2% work and 98% refusing to rule on relevant, important issues   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 18
    More: Obvious, Coca-Cola, Supreme Court, pomegranate juice, grape juices, POM Wonderful, Minute Maid  
•       •       •

4667 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2014 at 4:50 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-12 03:45:45 PM  
7 votes:
I consider the ability for a company to get sued for making misleading claims on its packaging to be a relevant, important issue.
2014-06-12 05:17:47 PM  
4 votes:

Fark like a Barsoomian: When the history books are written, this is the kind of stupid shiat that occupied one of the highest governmental bodies of the American Empire.

/obviously Coke+Minute Maid should lose this
//still sad the USSC has to deal with this


Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.
2014-06-12 04:59:50 PM  
2 votes:
As much as I don't like certain justices... The SCOTUS does do a lot of work.
Hell, these days one could argue that they have more effect on the nation than congress does.
2014-06-12 04:53:41 PM  
2 votes:
You would say that, if you were completely ignorant of how precedent is made in our legal system.
2014-06-13 12:36:45 PM  
1 votes:
So this is the best part of this case:

Pom Wonderful is notorious for having outrageous and misleading advertising. They are one of the few companies that the FDA has actually formally chided in public for misleading advertising.

Before this ruling, companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi were unable to sue Pom Wonderful to allege false advertising and force their competitor to stop gaining market advantage through bullshiattery. Now, every drink maker in America is authorized to climb up Pom Wonderful's ass and try to force them to fall back on "because it tastes good" instead of "will prevent cancer and make you live forever."

I am happy we've ushered in an era where companies can't say almost anything they want because the FDA is so afraid of losing in court and having a precedent set that neuters their regulatory authority. Now the companies that are in direct competition can attempt to regulate themselves for their own individual and mutual benefit.
2014-06-13 09:50:53 AM  
1 votes:

Bertuccio: Misleading labeling has been a huge problem for years to the point where the FDA explicitly allows lies of omission in labeling ( like the example in the article ). Given that the FDA was made to help inform customers and no longer does that the ruling is important and beneficial.

/The % juice joke sucked, subby


But it was good enough to get me my first green light, even if not Front Page. :)

Frankly I'm happy with the SCOTUS ruling, and I also understand that sometimes not setting a precedent is a good thing in cases where much more debate needs to occur.

However I would still like to see ingredient labeling on beer...  it would be a great boon to the craft industry.
2014-06-12 06:11:10 PM  
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: Uzzah: Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.

Exactly - this is the kind of extremely important jurisdictional and right of action case that has HUGE ramifications for federal litigation for decades to come.  The fact that it doesn't involve (1) abortion (2) election financing or (3) religious freedom, however, means that some people think it is unimportant.


Exactly, this isn't relevant to Single Issue Voters (Don't forget (4) Gun rights), that means that to many people, this is considered a waste of time and wasting taxpayer dollars.

. . .they'd rather see the House passing the 284th attempt to repeal/defund the Affordable Care Act and the Senate fillibuster everything they can just so they can blame the failures on President Obama.

For all my complaints with SCOTUS (lookin' at you Scalia/Thomas), those 9 Justices do more actual work, governance and mature leadership than 535 Congressmen combined.
2014-06-12 05:40:48 PM  
1 votes:

Uzzah: Actually, the legal issue is kind of interesting. On the one hand, Congress gave exclusive regulatory authority over product labeling to the Food and Drug Administration. On the other hand, the Lanham Act gives private parties the right to sue over misleading labeling. Did Congress intend for one to have priority over the other? Did they just screw up and forget that there was already a law in place covering labeling? Cases like this are a window into how dysfunctional the legislative process is and how the courts wind up having to clean up the legislature's messes.


Exactly - this is the kind of extremely important jurisdictional and right of action case that has HUGE ramifications for federal litigation for decades to come.  The fact that it doesn't involve (1) abortion (2) election financing or (3) religious freedom, however, means that some people think it is unimportant.
2014-06-12 05:37:16 PM  
1 votes:

wantingout: They need term limits.


They have term limits. The term is limited to their lifetime.
2014-06-12 05:29:25 PM  
1 votes:

toraque: Or is the 2% versus 98% a joke referencing the misleading amounts of fruit juice in the case?


I think that 98% of the people in this thread didn't catch the joke.
2014-06-12 05:22:22 PM  
1 votes:

Fubini: Where do you get that 98% figure from? Is it because they turn down a lot of cases that are appealed to that level?

According to their website, they get about 7000 appeals every year and hear 100-150 of them. Considering that the *supreme* court will establish an unimpeachable precedent to rule the entire nation, I'm pretty OK with them turning over a case every two or three days.

Or, are you saying 98% because you feel that the supreme court just isn't ruling on the issues that you feel are important? Frankly, I'm glad that we don't have a SCOTUS that can unilaterally decide to start handing down decisions on whatever they feel is important. At that point, you've pretty much just made a third legislature.


Or is the 2% versus 98% a joke referencing the misleading amounts of fruit juice in the case?

Not going to say it's a GOOD joke . .

. . it's just better than the joke I had when I submitted this with a crappier headline.
2014-06-12 05:07:02 PM  
1 votes:
Subby's headline is farked up.  SCOTUS did well here.
2014-06-12 05:04:17 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: You would say that, if you were completely ignorant of how precedent is made in our legal system.


Indeed. Shill-like typing detected in TFA
2014-06-12 04:57:41 PM  
1 votes:
They refuse 98% of the stuff because they all agree with the lower court rulings.
2014-06-12 04:55:28 PM  
1 votes:

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: So, like Congress then.


2% would be an improvement for congress
2014-06-12 04:54:11 PM  
1 votes:
Nothing like Congress.  None of the Supremes can be Cantored, regardless of what happens.
2014-06-12 04:54:09 PM  
1 votes:

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: So, like Congress then.


Except occasionally SCOTUS actually does something useful...
2014-06-12 04:51:54 PM  
1 votes:
So, like Congress then.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report