WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are pressing the Supreme Court to stop big pharmaceutical corporations from paying generic drug competitors to delay releasing their cheaper versions of brand-name drugs. They argue that these deals deny consumers, usually for years, steep price declines that can exceed 90 percent.
The Obama administration, backed by consumer groups and the American Medical Association, says these so-called ‘‘pay for delay’’ deals profit the drug companies but harm consumers by adding $3.5 billion annually to their drug bills.
But you are padding the profits of pharmaceuticals so just take your medicine.
Pharmaceutical companies counter that they need to preserve longer the billions of dollars in revenue from their patented products in order to recover the billions they spend developing new drugs.
This as they make billions in profits and lay people off.
Both the large companies and the generic makers say the marketing of generics often is hastened by these deals.
The justices will hear the argument Monday....
--more--"
Related: Same-sex marriage debate goes to high court tomorrow
I'll give you one guess which one made the front page.
Also see: For plaintiffs in court case, parenthood trumps politics
"Supreme Court to weigh Ariz. voter ID law" Associated Press, March 18, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their US citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.
The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their US citizenship in order to use a registration form made under the federal ‘‘Motor Voter’’ registration law that doesn’t require such documentation.
This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.
--more--"
"High court appears split on stiffer voter ID law; Ariz. sought citizenship proof in federal election" by Adam Liptak | New York Times, March 19, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared divided along familiar lines on Monday as it heard arguments over whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship from people seeking to register to vote in federal elections.
Several of the court’s more liberal justices sounded doubtful about a state law that imposes requirements beyond those listed in a federal law.
“Many people don’t have the documents that Arizona requires,’’ Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
The Arizona law, enacted in 2004 by a ballot initiative, requires prospective voters to prove that they are citizens by submitting copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers, or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.
The question for the justices was whether that state law conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, ‘‘Are you a citizen of the United States?’’
Prospective voters must check a box yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury.
Several members of the court’s conservative wing indicated that the state was free to impose additional requirements to make sure only citizens vote.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal form was inadequate. ‘‘So it’s under oath,’’ he said. ‘‘Big deal. If you’re willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you’re willing to violate the perjury laws.
‘‘Under oath,’’ he added, ‘‘is not proof at all. It’s just a statement.’’
Although the case heard Monday focuses on Arizona, it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating such legislation.
This is the second voting eligibility issue the high court is tackling this session. Last month, several justices voiced skepticism about whether a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law that has helped millions of minorities exercise their right to vote, especially in areas of the Deep South, was still needed.
The court will issue rulings in both cases later this year....
Does it matter anymore when there is no one to vote for in rigged elections?
--more--"
Related: Supreme Court to review Michigan’s affirmative action ban
"Court backs student in textbook copyright case" by Mark Sherman | Associated Press, March 20, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that textbooks and other goods made and sold abroad can be resold online and in discount stores without violating US copyright law. The outcome was a huge relief to eBay, Costco, and other businesses that trade in products made outside the United States.
In a 6-3 opinion, the court threw out a copyright infringement award to publisher John Wiley & Sons against Thai graduate student Supap Kirtsaeng, who used eBay to resell copies of the publisher’s copyrighted books that his relatives first bought abroad at cut-rate prices.
Justice Stephen Breyer said in his opinion for the court that once goods are sold lawfully, whether in the United States or elsewhere, publishers and manufacturers lose the protection of US copyright law.
‘‘We hold that the ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad,’’ Breyer said.
Had the court come out the other way, it would have crimped the sale of many goods sold online and in discount stores, and it would have complicated the tasks of museums and libraries that contain works produced outside the United States, Breyer said.
--more--"
Also see:
Well, are ya'?
