As a rule, I don’t write blog entries before noon. My rational brain is prone to producing all kinds of random stuff during the morning hours, and my internal censor is very unreliable. But today is pretty crazy already, so let’s just go for it.
I wonder how many people are really focused on their jobs today. Of course, that begs a corollary question: I wonder how many people are as obsessed with this election as I am. Almost everyone I know seems to be similarly obsessed, so my sample is skewed.
Last night I dreamed I was watching archival footage of Sarah Palin, back in her TV news days, visiting various public places carrying a turkey she’d dressed in her neighbor’s silk blouse and pearls. Apparently, La Paline was making some kind of animal-rights statement (that we should treat turkeys like people?) and simultaneously sending up her neighbor’s bourgeois pretensions, presumably in contrast to her own cotton-and-canvas folksiness. Still, in my dream, I thought the stunt was original and daring, and I admired her for it. Then I woke up.
Meanwhile, the world continues to turn. The Supreme Court is weighing a case that may well determine the extent of pharmaceutical companies’ tort liability for the foreseeable future. In the words of the inimitable Dahlia Lithwick: “Wyeth is being called the most important business case of the year because, if the court finds that the FDA warning occupies the field of drug warnings, it will effectively immunize drug makers from many state tort suits. If it finds pre-emption here, the most business-friendly Supreme Court in decades can cancel the room with two queen-size beds and order a single king for itself and big pharma.”
When the FDA approves a drug, it also approves a label that must be included with the drug. Wyeth argues that the label can’t be changed or amended without jeopardizing the drug’s approved status. Levine, the plaintiff, argues that the approved label constitutes the most minimal warning permissible (a “floor” rather than a “ceiling”) and that drug companies are not only allowed but are duty-bound to add warning language as new risks surface. While I don’t miss law school, I do miss grappling with problems like this and delving into precedents, implications, complications, and the like.
Bonus: In that article, Lithwick introduced me to the idea of using “bigfoot” as a verb. How colorful! Love it.
When you move back and we set up a law firm we can grapple with these issues all the time. And it’ll be better than law school because we can get paid to do it (imagine that). There’s almost nothing I’d rather sue that big pharma. Except insurance companies. I might set up a boutique firm that does nothing but sues insurance companies. And I might do it pro bono. I think I’m ranting…