Preemption: The Theft Of Your Civil Liberties

Help for workers and consumers is on the way. "Complete Immunity" is out; fairness is in.

Pres. Obama is poised to reverse the Bush administration's “COMPLETE IMMUNITY DOCTRINE,” a radically conservative doctrine that uses PREEMPTION to give complete immunity to negligent corporations. Preemption deprives workers and consumers of the right to hold wrongdoers accountable through the civil justice system. The Bush administration has used preemption to deprive Americans of several fundamental, traditionally American civil liberties, most notably the right to trial by jury and the right of access to the courts.

To reverse the injustice, the Obama administration needs to immediately implement the following:

(1) Issue an immediate stay order of all "non-final or recently completed rules" that PREEMPT state law protecting workers and consumers. At this time, there are 23 preemptive regulations, including several dealing with auto safety and products requiring FDA approval.

(2) Revise Executive Order 13132 on Federalism, instructing agencies and the courts regarding the Obama administration’s policy of "NO PREEMPTION TO DENY CIVIL LIBERTIES." The Obama administration should make it clear: PREEMPTION is THEFT of CIVIL LIBERTIES!

(3) Establish a White House office to coordinate and implement a "NO PREEMPTION TO DENY CIVIL LIBERTIES" policy, carefully overseeing the preemption language included in all federal rules.

(4) Utilize the rule making process to reinstate Congressional intent regarding the ability of injured consumers to hold medical device manufacturers accountable for injuries to consumers. In Riegel v. Medtronic, Sup. Ct. Justice Antonin Scalia "misconstrued the Medical Device Amendments of 1976," and gave all irresponsible medical device manufacturers "complete immunity" from claims regarding their Class III pre-market approved devices. The FDA needs to withdraw its August 2008 final rule regarding labeling. The rule discourages medical device manufactures and pharmaceutical companies from updating warning labels with hazard information without prior FDA approval, a blatant attempt to influence the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine (argued November 3, 2008).

(5) Issue new rule making guidelines for rules containing PREEMPTION language. Agencies like the FDA and NHTSA have become SUPER-LEGISLATORS, implementing agency policies contrary to the Constitution’s separation of powers and explicit Congressional intent. Here are some examples:

70 Fed. Reg. 36094 (2005) and 73 Fed. Reg. 58887 (2008) give automobile manufacturers BLANKET IMMUNITY from lawsuits, literally a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, for making vehicles with an insufficient number of seat belts. Yet, many states have laws that make illegal for driver and passengers not to "buckle-up."

71 Fed. Reg. 76852 (2006) and 73 Fed. Reg. 72130 (2008) "establishes minimum security requirements for railroads to transport hazardous materials." This rule gives railroads COMPLETE IMMUNITY if they injure local residents, directly contradicting recent legislation.

Remember, PREEMPTION is THEFT of YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!

Justice Roberts Pulls A Scalia and Sticks It To Middle Class Investors Again!

In Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc., the U.S. Supremes stuck it to the middle class again.

A conservative Republican Supreme Court ruled that people who buy shares in companies that defraud them can't sue those who helped cook the books. The Supreme's "hey, suck it up" approach was not totally unexpected in view of the Supreme Court's unabashed protection of business fraud.

But hey, you who philosophize disgrace take the rag away from your face, cause now ain't the time for your tears. Here's the real outrage.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, the pinnacle of honesty, pulled a "Jutice Scalia" move. At first, Roberts recused himself in the case, because he owned stock in Cisco, the parent company of defendant Scientific-Atlanta. But then, Roberts rejoined case and ruled in favor of the corporate thieves, after selling his stock in Cisco.

To add salt to the investor's wound, Solicitor General Paul Clement at first sided with the Securities and Exchange Commission, who sided with investors, but changed his position and sided with the corporate thieves in response to pressure from the Bush administration. (Here's the Clement's brief favoring the corporate thieves).

Friends in high places: Conservative Republican Supreme Court protects corporate greed.

Several recent decisions from the conservative Republican Supreme Court have accomplished what slick Dick Cheney and lobbyist Jack Abramoff were unable to do.

Dominated by the Far-Fetched Four, i.e. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, the conservative Republican Supreme Court has handed down decision after decision that hurt working families who try to protect themselves against corporation greed.

The Far-Fetched Four and their conservative compatriots have undermined public safety and have protected and promoted corporate greed by throwing out verdicts against tobacco companies and automakers and shielded various industries from various forms of liability.

How can anyone justify being "conservative" with justice?

David G. Savage, LA Times 06/21/2007 Read Article: LA Times