After deliberating more than six months, the justices in a 5-4 vote blocked an agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims. The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said “nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.”
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Can you please just tell me if it is a good thing or a bad thing please, the more I read the more I am simply confused.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.
The Biden administration had argued to the court that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.
It’s both. Sort of an election dependent Schrödinger’s cat. The settlement amount was far too low in relation to the damage caused and the profits earned, so the immunity from future settlements was absurd. However, if Trump wins in the fall, there’s no way his new Project 2025 Schedule F hires will bring appropriate charges against a business doing business.
You’re not wrong. At the same time, if Trump wins, the idea that the Sacklers might get away with effectively homicide on a multi billion dollar heroin dealing scale, won’t be even in the top 100 problems. “How can we punish the guilty” will have to take a back seat to “how can I prevent the guilty from directly threatening my safety or maybe putting me in prison” for a little while.
This is very specifically how Oklahoma’s AG sold their case against the religious charter school.
[Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond] said allowing a school like St. Isidore would open the door for state-funded schools to teach other religious beliefs, such as Sharia law or Satanism.
“While I understand that the Governor and other politicians are disappointed with this outcome, I hope that the people of Oklahoma can rejoice that they will not be compelled to fund radical religious schools that violate their faith,” Drummond said.
Probably the same group that flipped a shit when they started doing yoga in schools because they were “trying to indoctrinate kids into hinduism/buddhism”
No, this how you get the maggots to have religion more "defined and “classified.”
Remember the church of Satan tried this in Florida and desantis just plainly said “No nuh uh. Not yours. You’re not an actual religion. You don’t count.”
Hinduism is not an actual religion? They would have a harder time getting anyone to agree with a straight face
I do hope this is a form of protest, simply because he’s going to run into all sorts of racism and bigotry that we should have long since outgrown. If he makes those politicians understand their inconsistency, that’s a win.
On the other hand, he’s right about the historical importance of such a major religion and we would all do well to learn more about that. If religion belongs anywhere in public schooling, it would be as a survey or comparative religion course, maybe influence on history. …… it’s tough to learn a survey of major religions or compare major relig in a if you limit yourself to one sect of one religion
That’s only if they feel like they have to care about being “fair”. Or attempting to have ethics or agree on having a social contract.
They no longer care.
It is already well-known that requiring the Ten Commandments in the classroom is unconstitutional. They don’t think it matters or welcome the fight on it.
I’m super conflicted about this. I want cheap EVs, but at the same time, China is intentionally dumping their prices to kill competition so they can later jack it up.
That’s the problem. Storage. Current battery tech just doesn’t scale. Nuclear fills those gaps for night time and cloudy days.
We literally can just run 100% electric right now with zero emissions today if the world went nuclear. We already have the tech today. It’s scalable today.
No need to wait to develop new battery tech. Our future is in our hands right now.
No single thing short of abolishing the entire US Military (the singles largest polluter in the world) isn’t going to be the thing to save is. It’s about taking ALL the steps you can to make the world able to be saved. Not a great lens to evaluate personal decisions bases on if it solves the whole problem right away or not.
Arguing for everyone to go out and scrap their current car just to buy a new one isn’t going to do anything for emissions. You realize building a new car creates more pollution than just buying or using one that already exists right?
The commenter above is claiming that we’re all going to die if we can’t all go buy a new Chinese EV for $10k, which is absurd and counterproductive to reducing emissions.
Arguing for everyone to go out and scrap their current car just to buy a new one isn’t going to do anything for emissions.
Literally no one said that everyone should get a new car.
The commenter above is claiming that we’re all going to die if we can’t all go buy a new Chinese EV for $10k
No they’re saying market fairness doesn’t matter if you end up dead from climate change. Like the roughly 250,000 people a year who’s deaths can be attributed to it. Climate change is already on track to kill us, we need to actively stop it, no one thinks not being able to buy a Chinese car is going to kill them. It’s the thing that’s already killing them that we want to stop. A cheaper EV gives those who would otherwise be buying another ICE car a better option. They shouldn’t have to wait for arbitrary reasons to be able to make greener choices.
It won’t matter how fair things were if we are all dead.
What other conclusion can you get from a comment like this? “We’re all dead unless we can all get our hands on these cheap Chinese EVs.” We can’t drive two cars at once meaning we must get rid of our current vehicles, no?
Who’s going to be able to purchase these cars if hundreds of thousands/millions of union workers lose their job due to these Chinese subsidies undercutting everyone else? That has a cascading effect on the rest of the economy if you weren’t familiar with similar scenarios happening in the past like when the housing market was manipulated by banks handing out ARM loans to everyone in 2007. If you think this is all about American protectionism, why is Europe imposing the same tariffs on China for the very same reason? They’re much more accepting of climate change policy and taking steps toward a greener future. Perhaps they also see something that you’re not here.
The opposite of dumping is happening. For example the Kia EV5 is sold at $20k in China while the same made in China model is sold overseas Starting at $46k
Well at least whatever profit Kia can’t make in China due to the low price. They can hopefully gain back from markets outside China thanks to the lack of competition driving prices down.
When people talk about the New York Times’ neoliberal bias, this is what we’re talking about. Lots of people won’t notice because it’s relatively subtle, but it is absolutely biased against progressives/actual liberals.
The New York Times published the headline “Bowman Falls in House Primary, Overtaken by Flood of Pro-Israel Money” — before swapping it out for “Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats.”
This is why we need more independent outlets like The Intercept. This shit needs to be called out.
The problem with The Intercept is that it was founded by Glenn Greenwald, who is constantly not only going on right-wing media, but often agreeing with their terrible points.
So I don’t trust it a lot of the time.
I don’t doubt what they are saying in this case, however.
I totally agree about Greenwald, but he was pushed out/resigned in 2020, he has nothing to do with them anymore. When he co-founded it, he was still a well-respected journalist. He isn’t anymore, but The Intercept still does exceptional journalism. I recommend taking another look.
Disagreeing with one of the founders which doesn’t work there anymore means it’s untrustworthy? If you believe The Intercept is a “right wing propaganda outlet” you’d better to cite examples of that than what you think of an ex-employee.
Now you want me to go through every questionable thing Greenwald has said every time he does things like go on Fox News and agree with the presenter and pick a specific one?
Okay, fine. How about when he called Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson socialists?
I’ll agree with you that his comment is far fetched. His definition of a “socialist” appears to be more related to non-interventionism.
As you had the courtesy to provide an example I did a little digging too and found that the Intercept did publish an article about Glenn which was not all that positive.
Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.
The narrative Glenn presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies — all of them designed to make him appear as a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism.
We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.
The defining feature of The Intercept’s work in recent years has been the investigative journalism that came out of painstaking work by our staffers in Washington, D.C., New York, and across the rest of the country. It is the staff of The Intercept that has been carrying out our investigative mission — a mission that has involved a collaborative editing process.
We have no doubt that Glenn will go on to launch a new media venture where he will face no collaboration with editors — such is the era of Substack and Patreon. In that context, it makes good business sense for Glenn to position himself as the last true guardian of investigative journalism and to smear his longtime colleagues and friends as partisan hacks. We get it. But facts are facts, and The Intercept’s record of fearless, rigorous, independent journalism speaks for itself.
Most American news selectively reports more negatively on other countries such as Russia and China. Iran is a hot topic where every article is about women’s rights. The favorite subject of the west when they want to commit war crimes anywhere. Need to destroy the country to save those poor oppressed women.
All news has a bias and wants to paint a narrative. The only question is whether their reporting is factually accurate or you are getting half the story.
Analysis / Bias The Intercept has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, such as this New Yorker article that reads, “Greenwald’s focus on “deep state” depredations has exiled him from MSNBC but has given him a place on Fox News.”
Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald has criticized MSNBC host Rachel Maddow for turning into an “utterly scripted, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack.” Greenwald says this criticism has led to the end of his appearances on MSNBC. Greenwald often criticized left-leaning media coverage of Trump-Russia collusion, namely CNN, MSNBC, and CBS, arguing that “very little evidence supported the idea that Moscow was hot for Donald.”
However, The Intercept is harshly critical of Donald Trump and right-wing policies with articles such as this: Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Culmination of War on Terror Mentality but Still Uniquely Shameful. In review, The Intercept publishes articles with strongly emotionally loaded language, such as “The Ignored Legacy of George H.W. Bush: War Crimes, Racism, and Obstruction of Justice” and “The 10 Most Appalling Articles in the Weekly Standard’s Short and Dreadful Life.”
The Intercept rejects mainstream establishment politics in favor of progressive liberalism with this pro-Bernie Sanders quote: “ignore the opinion polls and the bogus arguments against him: whether you like him or not, Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner right now,” from “Critics Say Bernie Sanders Is Too Old, Too White, and Too Socialist to Run for President in 2020. They’re Wrong.”
Regarding sourcing, The Intercept always uses credible sources such as The Economist, The Hill, Politico, NYMag, and the Washington Post.
In general, The Intercept provides in-depth investigative stories that are sensational in nature. Most stories are critical of the right-left establishment and lean strongly progressive left in ideology.
Yeah I appreciate this take, and I think it’s still mostly accurate, but Glenn Greenwald was pushed out from The Intercept in 2020, when his weird political transformation became apparent. I was very sad to see his weird red-pilling, I really respected the way he handled the Snowden leak. Can’t really take him seriously anymore though. I don’t think they have anyone with his bizarre beliefs on staff anymore.
Yeah I think that was my main reservation, and he’s been gone a few years now. But it was a little while - in the fuckstormchaos of 2017-2020 - where you’d see a theindependent link and it was straight garbage. It’s hopefully much better now.
All I see is typical MBFC bias. The opinion of some rando (MBFC being the opinion of one person mind you) rating them on the internet is not signs of a problem with them.
I don’t disagree. But I’m pretty sure this was intended to be done on the election year. Don’t get me wrong, I will not vote for the orange fuzz ball with a gun to my head. But this could’ve been done earlier in his term
China seems to be succeeding in EV vehicles, not just cars, airplanes too. I’m sorta pining for the days when we were talking about a North America Union. These days its all about protectionism and wars. :(
Political process is captured. Voting is a futile exercise under the current regime.
It was designed that way too!
Ever since fall of USSR, elites decided that they can do whatever and that's what they have done while brain dead boomers enabled it with their votes lol
Patently untrue at the executive level. Each of the last presidential elections was easily winnable by the other candidate. Even Bush v Gore was avoidable if more people in Florida voted blue. Our elections for representatives are fucked by gerrymandering, but that does not factor into our current Supreme Court who made this decision. Fact of the matter is, if more people would have voted for Hillary (and we all know the tiny margins by now) we would have reproductive rights, empowered federal agencies, and a healthier democracy. We just failed and we need to self-reflect on that instead of just throwing our hands up and saying “rigged” and I would hope after the last few years, everyone can understand why.
Conspiracy theories, “XINOs”, the uni party, “the votes are rigged”. Where have I heard all of this before? Oh right, MTG. I’ll pass on this populist drivel, thank you. And for fucks sake can we all just let MLK rest in his fucking grave instead of trotting him out for every unrelated argument online?
Funny how folks like the person you responded to think they are the most enlightened individuals and that everyone else just doesn’t get it. They act like thinking for themselves is parroting buzzwords they heard on the “news”, talk radio, or some private facebook group.
That’s what populism is. Rule of the uneducated, driven by nothing but passion. It’s a legal mob, ripping through the government with pitchforks and torches. I think horseshoe theory is shit, but this is why it exists. Populists don’t rule with law, they rule with anger. That’s the one time I’ll agree with “both sides”, even if I’m likely gonna be on the side that would “win” under a populist left gov. If there is anything the last decade has given me, it’s a burning displeasure with populists who refuse to measure their passions with law and the ideals behind it.
Gerrymandering to fuck is a thing. There was a story yesterday or the day before about the Mayor who was elected in the south and got blocked by the white city planners or whatever they’re called. Sure, courts ruled in his favor, but the article pointed out how Black residents hadn’t been aware that there was an election process for years because mayors kept being appointed without their input.
I’m not saying not to vote. I’m saying that has also been neutralized in places and that’s it’s far from what its idealized state would be.
I think since there’s a number of prominent unhinged women in the Republican party, it’s bringing all the other crazy bitches out of the woodwork that think they can make a lucrative career being a hysterical loonie. They may not be wrong.
I think it’s worse: in the past voter would never let them in. Now the voter doesn’t care. It’s like decades of reality TV has desensitized everyone from trashy behavior.
I’m wondering if it’s why I don’t get so much as a rejection email for many of the jobs I’ve applied for. It always feels like submitting an application is just tossing it into the void but this study seems to corroborate that.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.