22 pointsby mikhael2 hours ago5 comments
  • gruez23 minutes ago
    Title is misleading. The case is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Co._v._Durnell, and Wikipedia's summary is:

    >The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Actpreempts a state-law labeling requirement that differs from the federal labeling requirements imposed under FIFRA.

    In other words, they don't have immunity from cancer lawsuits. They have immunity from cancer lawsuits stemming from being noncompliant with state labeling laws.

  • ggooan hour ago
    Absolute disgrace.
  • cyanydeezan hour ago
    ...Health Insurance industry celebrates long term reliance goals.
  • monirmamounan hour ago
    [flagged]
    • pipesan hour ago
      Where is the evidence for your Jewish conspiracy theory?
      • cyanydeez43 minutes ago
        the Mommy and Daddy racist are fighting again.
        • pipes42 minutes ago
          What do you mean?
  • monirmamounan hour ago
    Sorry last post errored, just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon. And also they are pushing SCOTUS to replace 1st Amendment with IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
    • schainks20 minutes ago
      What lead you to believe this? Got a link from a reputable source?
    • autoexec40 minutes ago
      > just saying Israel lobby pushed SCOTUS to legalize Roundup because they are using it for chem warfare in Lebanon

      This court decision wasn't about legalizing Roundup. Roundup was already 100% legal before this court decision, so there is zero reason for anyone to have pushed this court to legalize it. Even if the US suddenly decided to make Roundup illegal to use, in what way would that prevent Israel (or any other country outside of the US) from using it? Not only is what you are saying factually wrong, it wouldn't make any sense even if it were true.