#monsanto

monsanto

1. Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (7-2)

The Court ruled that Monsanto is shielded from cancer victims suing over Roundup. Federal pesticide law blocks states from requiring cancer warnings on labels.

2. Wolford v. Lopez (6-3)

The Court struck down Hawaii’s law requiring permission to bring guns into private property that is open to the public like stores, restaurants, and hotels.

3. Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (6-3)

Asylum seekers stopped at the border or turned back in Mexico? The Court says you haven’t “arrived” in America yet — so no right to apply for asylum.

4. Mullin v. Doe (6-3)

A year or more later, the managers bosses come in and tell me that I'm gonna have to get rid of the cat. The cat goes outside for a few years. She holds her own against the other neighborhood strays and overeats off of the neighbor's porch.

Then they move in pest poison boxes, so I buy another litter box and bring her inside.

(nb4 anything, I know. Danger of horrible pet death and ecological terrorism. Alright. I mean we allow a billion ecological terrors but fine.)

Now it's been over a week. Whenever anyone is awake she (the cat) yells at us and the door begging to be let out. It's starting to feel villainous.

"I will not be silenced" ass cat

"cry for freedom" ass cat

"the revolution will not have a litter box" ass cat

I contain her because I want to use her body for cuddles. Is that so much different than the government containing me because it wants to use my body for breeding and factory fodder?

Carey Gillam and Dharna Noor at The Guardian:

The US supreme court has found in favor of the former Monsanto company in a ruling that is expected to block thousands of lawsuits filed by people alleging the key ingredient in the weed killer Roundup causes cancer. The decision was made in a 7-2 vote, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh offering the majority opinion and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The case, Monsanto v Durnell, specifically dealt with the question of whether a federal law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory authority over pesticides preempts state claims that a company failed to warn users of certain product risks when the EPA itself has not required such warnings. “Fifra expressly preempts Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claim,” reads the opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, pointing to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra).

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson said: “Fifra expressly limits States’ authority to regulate pesticide labels, but it does not eliminate that authority,” adding: “Fifra’s preemption clause does not block state-law claims where the violation of state law is also a violation of Fifra.” “In accepting Monsanto’s argument and holding that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is preempted, the Court misunderstands Fifra’s requirements, misinterprets the scope of Fifra’s preemption, and ultimately leaves Durnell without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered,” she wrote. The case at the heart of the decision deals with Monsanto’s glyphosate – a weed-killing chemical used in the popular Roundup brand and numerous other herbicide products sold by the former Monsanto company, which is now owned by Germany’s Bayer.

In a devastating blow to the MAHA movement, SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell that lawsuits against Monsanto maker Roundup can be blocked. SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion in Durnell, with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

See Also:

Only a handful of corporations control the seed market, turning taxpayer subsidies intended for farmers into corporate profits.

Read More: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/gmo/big-corporations-get-rich-from-their-secret-seed-patents-taxpayers-and-farmers-pay-the-price