Updated @ 10 PM EST 12.05.2023: The full transcript of the argument (as a very large PDF) is now up on the Supremes' web dockets. And, reading it closely, I now am pretty sure both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- and maybe even Barrett -- will side with the US Trustee, and against the Sacklers. So Alito and Thomas will be two votes -- against seven. End update.
This is Bloomberg Law's report, after listening in, as well.
And I agree -- this one doesn't sort itself readily -- into the now tiredly-standard liberal/conservative buckets. I think the Chief Justice will lead (in favor of preserving due process of law) here -- and only Alito / Thomas / Gorsuch might side with the Sacklers. But it is even possible that Gorsuch leaves Alito and Thomas as a minority dissent at 7-2. A victory for equal, and ordered, liberty under law. We shall see -- here's the bit ($$$ subs. req.):
. . .The US Supreme Court signaled a likely divide over Purdue Pharma LP’s $6 billion opioid settlement, as the justices weighed Biden administration contentions that the accord improperly shields the Sackler family members who own the company.
In a Monday argument that cut across the court’s normal ideological divides, some justices questioned whether the Sacklers should get the benefit of a legal shield when they haven’t filed for bankruptcy themselves. . . .
Yes. I definitely see KBJ / Sotomayor / Kagan / The Chief as solid votes against the Sacklers' nonsense -- with even Kavanaugh and Gorsuch offering some highly skeptical questions, and on due process grounds to boot, of the Purdue counsel. [Only Justice Barrett seemed relatively unbothered by the Sacklers' gambit, so she's a wild card. And we know Thomas / Alito are bought and paid for, on this issue.]
So. . . you never know -- until the opinion bell rings. We shall, as ever. . . see, but (for now) I'll say. . . "Vaya Con Dios", Jamie Sprayregen. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment