Yawn.

Rights shmights, I agree with Justice Thomas -- you and your whiny "right" to buy luxury items like a telephone or air conditioning -- what's wrong with you people? That's not what this country is about!

As usual, I think Archie Bunker summed it up best:

Archie Bunker: That ain't the American Way, buddy. No, siree. Listen here, professor. You're the one who need an American History lesson. You don't know nothin' about Lady Liberty standin' there in the harbor, with her torch on high screamin' out to all the nations in the world: "Send me your poor, your deadbeats, your filthy." And all the nations send 'em in here, they come swarming in like ants. Your Spanish P.R.'s from the Caribboin, your Japs, your Chinamen, your Krauts and your Hebes and your English fags. All of 'em come in here and they're all free to live in their own separate sections where they feel safe. And they'll bust your head if you go in there. *That's* what makes America great, buddy.
[exits Stivic house]
Mike Stivic: [to Gloria] I think we just heard Archie Bunker's Bicentennial Minute.

Still, if you are concerned with having no access to court when you buy anything, even something as high-falutin' as a telephone, somebody is trying to do something about that today:

A coalition of 67 consumer groups, including Public Citizen and Consumers Union, will escort dozens of victims of the high costs and low awards rate of arbitrations to visit with their congressmen tomorrow during “Arbitration Fairness Day.” The all-day activities will include the unveiling of a survey of Americans who don’t like the idea of giving up their rights to court.

Arbitration advocates will no doubt come back with their own examples to show the opposite. The Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform underwrote a 2005 poll of 609 adults who used arbitration and liked it. Two-thirds said they would be likely to use it again. But it tells little about the suckers who have the choice made for them. Only 19 percent of the people in the poll were required by contract to use arbitration, and those are the cases under fire.

Forced Arbitration

That notion seems to be lost even on members of the Supreme Court, which earlier this month ruled that a group of building- services workers who had been demoted couldn’t override mandatory arbitration to take their age-discrimination case to court. Among the arguments by Justice Clarence Thomas was that the streamlined procedures of arbitration are not a basis to consider the forum inadequate, and that arbitration’s informality “is one of the chief reasons that parties select arbitration.”

Wrong, Mr. Justice. “The parties” don’t select arbitration in these disputed cases. Only one party does.

My favorite local arbitrator, by the way, is former Chief Justice Arthur England, who is unfailingly pleasant and highly professional.

Then again, at $650 an hour, he better be.

For Justice Thomas, that is about all it boils down to:

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

He gave examples: “It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living. They’re owed air conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions.”

Those are luxuries, Justice Thomas said.

Umm -- what the hail is he talking about? First of all, I saw The Seven Year Itch and I can assure you Marilyn Monroe didn't even have that newfangled AC box thingy and therefore had to go downstairs to Tom Ewell's apartment to cool off.

(Thank God she did, btw).

Besides, I don't think our fundamental rights are all about purchasing a 50" flat screen from Best Buy (although even there, with abusive adhesion contracts, there are precious few "rights" still left to the consumer).

But what about habeas corpus? Right to jury trial? Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Right to see evidence against you? Free speech?

You know, all that old stuff.

I don't even want to know what rights he thinks we have too many of.

Major new preemption decision by the Supremes -- sanity has been (somewhat) restored:

WYETH v. LEVINE

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT

No. 06–1249. Argued November 3, 2008—Decided March 4, 2009

Petitioner Wyeth manufactures the antinausea drug Phenergan. After a clinician injected respondent Levine with Phenergan by the “IVpush” method, whereby a drug is injected directly into a patient’s vein, the drug entered Levine’s artery, she developed gangrene, and doctors amputated her forearm. Levine brought a state-law damages action, alleging, inter alia, that Wyeth had failed to provide an adequate warning about the significant risks of administering Phenergan by the IV-push method. The Vermont jury determined that Levine’s injury would not have occurred if Phenergan’s label includedan adequate warning, and it awarded damages for her pain and suffering, substantial medical expenses, and loss of her livelihood as aprofessional musician. Declining to overturn the verdict, the trial court rejected Wyeth’s argument that Levine’s failure-to-warn claimswere pre-empted by federal law because Phenergan’s labeling hadbeen approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.

Held: Federal law does not pre-empt Levine’s claim that Phenergan’slabel did not contain an adequate warning about the IV-push method of administration. Pp. 6–25.

(a) The argument that Levine’s state-law claims are pre-empted because it is impossible for Wyeth to comply with both the state-lawduties underlying those claims and its federal labeling duties is rejected. Although a manufacturer generally may change a drug labelonly after the FDA approves a supplemental application, the agency’s“changes being effected” (CBE) regulation permits certain preapproval labeling changes that add or strengthen a warning to improve drug safety. Pursuant to the CBE regulation, Wyeth could have unilaterally added a stronger warning about IV-push administration,and there is no evidence that the FDA would ultimately have rejected 2 WYETH v. LEVINE

Syllabus

such a labeling change. Wyeth’s cramped reading of the CBE regulation and its broad assertion that unilaterally changing the Phenerganlabel would have violated federal law governing unauthorized distribution and misbranding of drugs are based on the fundamental misunderstanding that the FDA, rather than the manufacturer, bearsprimary responsibility for drug labeling. It is a central premise of theFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the FDA’s regulationsthat the manufacturer bears responsibility for the content of its labelat all times. Pp. 11–16.

(b) Wyeth’s argument that requiring it to comply with a state-lawduty to provide a stronger warning would interfere with Congress’ purpose of entrusting an expert agency with drug labeling decisions is meritless because it relies on an untenable interpretation of congressional intent and an overbroad view of an agency’s power to preempt state law. The history of the FDCA shows that Congress didnot intend to pre-empt state-law failure-to-warn actions. In advancing the argument that the FDA must be presumed to have established a specific labeling standard that leaves no room for different state-law judgments, Wyeth relies not on any statement by Congress but on the preamble to a 2006 FDA regulation declaring that statelaw failure-to-warn claims threaten the FDA’s statutorily prescribed role. Although an agency regulation with the force of law can preempt conflicting state requirements, this case involves no such regulation but merely an agency’s assertion that state law is an obstacleto achieving its statutory objectives. Where, as here, Congress has not authorized a federal agency to pre-empt state law directly, theweight this Court accords the agency’s explanation of state law’s impact on the federal scheme depends on its thoroughness, consistency,and persuasiveness. Cf., e.g., Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134. Under this standard, the FDA’s 2006 preamble does not merit deference: It is inherently suspect in light of the FDA’s failure to offer interested parties notice or opportunity for comment on the preemption question; it is at odds with the available evidence of Congress’ purposes; and it reverses the FDA’s own longstanding positionthat state law is a complementary form of drug regulation without providing a reasoned explanation. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861, is distinguished. Pp. 17–25.

___ Vt. ___, 944 A. 2d 179, affirmed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, J., joined.

Wow -- I never thought I would see the day I would find myself agreeing with something Justice Thomas said:

Because such a sweeping approach to pre-emption leads to the illegitimate—and thus, unconstitutional—invalidation of state laws, I can no longer assent to a doctrine that preempts state laws merely because they “stan[d] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of federal law.

Justice Thomas, a serious legal scholar on preemption?

I better read the opinion again.