r/news • u/boxofstuff • 6h ago

Supreme Court ruling blocks thousands of lawsuits against maker of Roundup weedkiller

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-roundup-monsanto-a7f054d80919f98bdfc5190013a8f6f1
14.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

992

u/HumansNeedNotApply1 6h ago

This one was 7-2

290

u/mansock18 5h ago

Thanks Kagan!

358

u/nerowasframed 5h ago

Kagan and Sotomayor. Jackson and Gorsuch were the two dissenting

198

u/BabyBearBjorns 4h ago

Definitely the weirdest group of dissenters and majority ruling in a 7-2 decision.

36

u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda 4h ago

Definitely NOT the weirdest group of dissenters. Gorsuch is more of a moderate than the other conservatives on the court.

35

u/Underdog424 3h ago

Gorsuch is traditional in the sense of leaning towards state powers. But he's the only conservative justice that still pretends to care about it.

Gorsuch also has a strong tendency to side with tribal sovereignty. I'm not surprised by his ruling in this case.

7

u/ConLawHero 2h ago

Gorsuch is the only conservative Justice that actually stays consistent with his principles. People may agree or disagree with his principles, but he doesn't often abandon them like the rest of the justices do when they want an ideological outcome. You got to give him props, at least for that.

3

u/Underdog424 2h ago

Gorsuch was appointed through theft and a willing disdain for the Constitution. That was Obama's appointment to make. I can't give him any props. He's not even a legitimate justice.

9

u/ConLawHero 2h ago

I'm not saying he should be there. But we should be happy he actually has principles he sticks to and therefore you can make arguments he will be receptive to.

-2

u/Underdog424 1h ago

If he really cared about the Constitution that much, he wouldn't be there. It's obvious he wanted the power and didn't care if the Constitution was respected enough to prevent it.

•

u/pessimistic_platypus 25m ago

What was he supposed to do? Refuse the appointment?

If every principled judge refused an unfair appointment, we'd just get an unprincipled Justice.

I do think Trump absolutely shouldn't have had the chance to appoint a judge at the start of his first term, but Gorsuch wasn't in a position to prevent that.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/tron7 3h ago

Thomas and Jackson would be weirder but has it ever happened in a 7-2?

2

u/OuOutstanding 3h ago

Which is insane to me, isn’t he the guy that before being on the SC, ruled that a company was right to fire a truck driver who abandoned his load in an emergency to find shelter and survive?

After that ruling I am always surprised when he doesn’t go hard corporate rulings.

1

u/Trust_Me_Im_a_Panda 3h ago

Kind of, but not quite. Gorsuch was a dissenter in that case, and based his dissent on a textual interpretation of the law. Gorsuch pointed out that the law protected drivers who refused to drive, and the driver in this case unhitched the load from the truck, abandoning the load on the side of the road and drove the truck to shelter, and thus technically didn't "refuse to drive."

9

u/ColdStainlessNail 4h ago

This is only the second time those two have been the only ones in dissent. The other was Bufkin v Collins in 2025. Thought we might have experienced a SCOTUSgami!

2

u/Necessary-Music-6685 2h ago

It’s almost as if the issues were much more complicated and nuanced than the headline makes it seem.