@ChildrensHD

The Trump administration sided with Big Ag in a case the Supreme Court is hearing that could grant immunity from pesticide-related harms.

“In December, the Trump administration sided with Bayer… in the case the Supreme Court is going to hear in April.”

“The Department of Justice lawyers… agreed with the argument that the attorneys for Bayer were presenting.”

“They basically said that the legal claims in the state courts based on a company’s failure to warn of risks are invalid.”

“Because the U.S. EPA doesn’t require a warning on the label.”

“So they actually already did take Bayer’s side and that was back in December.”

@joelsalatin

https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/2034646079199691011?s=20

@TheJusticeDept

Five Members of Sex Trafficking Ring Sentenced to Nearly 120 Years in Prison

“Today’s lengthy sentences reflect the heinous and depraved conduct of the defendants, who abused numerous women and girls for years,” said Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of

@DOJCrimDiv

. “The Department of Justice is committed to rooting out sex trafficking in the United States, seeking lengthy sentences for perpetrators and obtaining restitution for survivors so they can rebuild their lives. I thank the prosecutors and law enforcement who tirelessly pursued what was right and brought this case to a just conclusion.”

https://twitter.com/TheJusticeDept/status/2034712993745744019?s=20

ArtIII.S2.C1.12.6 Torts Committed on Navigable Waters

The first requirement for admiralty jurisdiction, which is based on the location of the incident, is satisfied if the tort arises on the high seas or on other navigable waters of the United States.7 Prior to Congress’s enactment of the Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1948, the Supreme Court had held that some claims arising from injury or damage to property caused by a vessel on navigable waters did not fall within admiralty jurisdiction when they were consummated on land (e.g., collision of a ship with a bridge).8 In the Extension Act,9 Congress enlarged admiralty jurisdiction to encompass many of these claims. The Court implicitly upheld that expansion of admiralty jurisdiction as within constitutional limits10 when determining that the jurisdiction ecompassed a tort that arose when a longshoreman slipped on loose beans that spilled from negligently packed cargo on a dock during a vessel’s unloading.11 In addition to Congress’s expansion of admiralty jurisdiction, the Court has maintained a few historical exceptions to a strict situs test for maritime jurisdiction.12 However, even with such congressional and judicial guidance, it may occasionally be difficult to distinguish maritime torts from land-based torts. For example, the Court held that admiralty jurisdiction did not extend to an injury caused by defective pier-based equipment that a dock worker suffered when unloading a vessel; thus, the worker had to resort to state law for a remedy.13

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the second factor, which asks whether the tort bears a significant relationship to a traditional maritime activity, may also raise complex interpretive questions. For example, in Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland, a jet aircraft departing a Cleveland airport collided with seagulls, crashed, and sank into the navigable state territorial waters of Lake Erie.14 The owners of the aircraft sued a federal air traffic controller and others for negligence, seeking to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts.15 The Court held that, in addition to establishing that the commission or consummation of the wrongful act took place on navigable waters,16 the plaintiffs had to show that the tort bore a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.17 Because a land-based aircraft’s flight between two locations within the United States’s continental boundaries did not possess such a relationship, the Court held that federal courts could not exercise admiralty jurisdiction.18 However, the Court’s opinion in Executive Jet suggests that Congress may have some flexibility to expand admiralty jurisdiction to encompass claims like those at issue in the case by enacting laws that, for example, enlarge the concept of a traditional maritime activity.19

In other cases, the Supreme Court has determined that admiralty jurisdiction exists because a case involves a traditional maritime activity. For example, the Court upheld the exercise of admiralty jursidiction over a collision between two private pleasure boats on navigable waters—even though pleasure boating was not exclusively a commercial activity—because such a collision could impact maritime commerce.20 For similar reasons, the Court held that a dredging company’s vessel was engaged in a traditional maritime activity when it damaged an underwater freight tunnel while performing maintenance work.21

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-12-6/ALDE_00013654/#:~:text=Maritime%20torts%20include%20injuries%20to%20people%20that,water%20may%20not%20fall%20within%20admiralty%20jurisdiction

@delbigtree

A few days ago a judge decided he knows more about children's health than Robert Kennedy Jr. and every member of the ACIP committee… And everyone at HHS, the CDC, and other.. This is a judge with no medical degree, no pediatric expertise, and a lifetime appointment… and with one ruling, he erased the most meaningful attempt to protect American children this government has ever made.

Reuters called it "upending Kennedy's overhaul of childhood vaccine policies." Here's what actually happened.

RFK Jr. looked at peer nations (like Denmark and Germany) with healthy kids and functioning societies, and said let's see if there's a smarter schedule. What he found was that we give 54 shots of 72 vaccine doses. Denmark gives roughly half that. And Denmark has not seen measles come back, or polio come back, or smallpox come back.

None of the fear porn the American Academy of Pediatrics has been selling you has actually happened.

Meanwhile we went from 12% of American children with chronic disease in the 1980s to nearly 50% today. In 48 years, we have seen the greatest collapse of children's health in the history of this country, happening in perfect parallel with a vaccine schedule that grew from 12 vaccines to 54 shots.

You cannot look at the health of American children and call that program a success. You simply cannot.

So what did the judge do? He said RFK Jr. didn't run it by ACIP, the advisory committee that by everyone's understanding has always been advisory only. No binding authority, just an opinion, not a mandate. At least that's what they always told us when the committee was captured… And then when Kennedy moved to satisfy that requirement, the judge said he didn't recognize the current ACIP either.

There is no committee he recognizes. According to him there are no changes allowed in either direction, no new vaccines can be added, there can be no modifications for any reason, including a bioweapon attack. One judge has put the entire country in limbo to protect a rubber-stamp committee that has never once had a genuine skeptic in the room.

A committee where members like Paul Offit voted to add rotavirus vaccines to the childhood schedule while personally developing a rotavirus vaccine and didn't recuse himself. That's the balance they're defending.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, a trade organization funded by the pharmaceutical industry, went to court to make sure your doctor has no say in your child's vaccine schedule. They don't want pediatricians in the conversation. They want the government to decide.

This is what happens when you try to clean the swamp. The swamp has judges.

This case is not over. It's an injunction, not a final ruling. The Trump administration will appeal. And we will keep fighting.

Because the children of this country deserve better than what 40 years of this program has given them.

https://twitter.com/delbigtree/status/2034701674414039397

>>24402475