Wednesday, December 31, 2008
WSJ Loses Editorial Page
"The Supreme Court ruled that consumers can sue Altria Group's Philip Morris USA unit under state unfair-trade laws for its advertising of 'light' cigarettes, striking a blow against a broad effort by U.S. corporations to limit their exposure to suits filed under state law. ... Similar suits are pending in other states, exposing the tobacco industry to a new avenue of attack by smoking opponents. More broadly, the decision undercuts a legal strategy that the business community has deployed to insulate itself from consumer lawsuits filed in state court. With increasing success, companies have been arguing that federal regulation of their products, implicitly barred state action, whether by consumers or state government, to hold them liable for injury. ... On Monday, the Supreme Court broke along familiar ideological lines. Justice Kennedy, who sometimes splits with he fellow conservatives, joined Justice Stevens's majority opinion, along with Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. ... In dissent, Justice Thomas argued that Monday's decision departed from the court's recent cases that have displaced state law in favor of federal regulation", my emphasis, Jess Bravin at the WSJ, 16 December 2008.
This article, "Altria Case Deals Blow To Efforts to Rein In Lawsuits", could have been titled, "Supreme Court Tilts Right: Upholds States' Rights". The WSJ continues confusing its editorial and news pages. Imagine, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a right-wing justice! John Roberts and Samuel Alito paid off for big business like two cheap streetwalkers. This case should have been a 9-0, no-brainer, shut out. Federal "regulation implicitly barred state action", wow. How can you make this argument with a straight face? What does the 10th Amendment say?