and those finding the rehnquist court limiting are now coming out for federal preemption. so we see a shift in valence. you might notice that the business community is facing an favoring preemption. it is not hard to see why. business would most likely prefer to be regulated by one regulator and the central government than 50 regulators in states, were more likely, but one state that is more restrictive. it is not surprising to see that federal preemption has become an argument favored by the business community and conservative advocates. the case and this trend seems to get that back out. what happens now? victories for states. the states are maine, vermont, and new york. so i would put this set of cases under the heading blue state rights. blue states' rights as opposed to the kind of states' rights that went to the anti-gun control and anti-domestic violence rulings in other cases. starting with the first, a poignant case. a woman who needs both arms as an anti nausea drug injected in her arm that causes complications leading to amputation. a one-armed former violinist

as an unexpected change in the law in order to advance their pre-existing agenda to weaken federal preemption. the result of this effort is the medical device safety act. the legislation we're discussing today would alter the mda's preemption provision to state that it does not apply to actions for liability under state law. now, my opposition to this approach stems from many factors. first, i do not believe that randomly selected jurors have the necessary@@@@#7rr$"rr part because they know that the financial risks of litigation are greatly reduced once the process is completed. however, if this legislation is enacted and manufacturers are required to ensure that they have approval of the fda as well as that of any 12 random people in any one of the states, the risks of marketing a device will greatly increase, and the cost of these devices will go even higher. as a result, innovation will be stifled and fewer and fewer devices will be brought to the marketplace. additionally, we will inevitably see a rise in the overall cost for devices as a means to offset the cost to more frivolous lawsuit

professor mcgarity has written extensively about administrative law and published "the preemption war: when federal bureaucracies trump local juries." professor mcgarity, @@@@@'6#+g"r

and those finding the rehnquist court limiting are now coming out for federal preemption.we see a shift in valence. you might notice that the business community is facing an favoring preemption. it is not hard to see why. business would most likely prefer to be regulated by one regulator and the central government than 50 regulators in states, were more likely, but one state that is more restrictive. it is not surprising to see that federal preemption has become an argument favored by the business community and conservative advocates. the case and this trend seems to get that back out. what happens now? victories for states. the states are maine, vermont, and new york. so i would put this set of cases under the heading blue state rights. blue states' rights as opposed to the kind of states' rights that went to the anti-gun control and anti-domestic violence rulings in other cases. starting with the first, a poignant case. a woman who needs both arms as an anti nausea drug injected in her arm that causes complications leading to amputation. a one-armed former violinist walk

as an unexpected change in the law in order to advance their pre-existing agenda to weaken federal preemption the result of this effort is the medical device safety act. the legislation we're discussing today would alter the mda's preemption provision to state that it does not apply to actions for liability under state law. now, my opposition to this approach stems from many factors. first, i do not believe that randomly selected jurors have the necessary scientific and clinical knowledge to perform the same level analysis -- and analysis as the review -- as the analysis and review by the experts at the fda. yet in essence, this legislation would supplant the findings of the fda with those of juries in state courts. this is not only bad policy from the perspective of device safety, it will also likely have a number of unintended consequences. once again, under the current system, device manufacturers go to considerable expense to obtain premarket approval, in part because they know that the financial risks of litigation are greatly reduced once the process is completed. however, if this legis

as an unexpected change in the law in order to advance their pre-existing agenda to weaken federal preemption. the result of this effort is the medical device safety act. the legislation we're discussing today would alter the mda's preemption provision to state that it does not apply to actions for liability under state law. now, my opposition to this approach stems from many factors. first, i do not believe that randomly selected jurors have the necessary scientific and clinical knowledge to perform the same level analysis -- and analysis as the review -- as the analysis and review by the experts at the fda. yet in essence, this legislation would supplant the findings of the fda with those of juries in state courts. this is not only bad policy from the perspective of device safety, it will also likely have a number of unintended consequences. once again, under the current system, device manufacturers go to considerable expense to obtain premarket approval, in part because they know that the financial risks of litigation are greatly reduced once the process is completed. however, if this legi

another problem that concerns me about the proposed legislation is that there is no federal preemptionany state law that is more stringent than federal law. and anyone that has gone through a mortgage process, when they hand you the 45 pages of documents, you are going to find yourself getting more documents if you have these conflicting state laws on these consumer issues. and i think that's a real concern as well. but the problem i have most of all is how much will this cost? every day we pick up another article in the newspaper, growing national debt. may be next economic crisis. unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer-term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth. interest payments on the debt alone last year was $452 billion. this year is expected to be $470 billion. the largest federal spending category after medicaid, medicare, social security and defense. at another article today, economist declares train wreck because of out of control federal budget deficits. the economist talks about the real question is h

we will continue state regulation of insurance, but we will do it through what we call preemption. federal will preempt state law or override state law in these areas where they would allow pre-existing conditions. >> to me afford insurance companies to continue [unintelligible] is that not going to increase everyone's premiums? >> the extent to which we deal with this business of the uninsured and having insurance, that brings more revenue into the insurance company. >> i am just trying to figure out what did this. but it is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with. it is one that is not even settled at this time. it is something that fits in with the american principle of individual responsibility. it is like the state if you decide to drive a car, and you have an individual responsibility to have car insurance. >> a few moments ago you said this bill, a john deere would not have health care. >> i did say that now. >> a few weeks ago you said you want better health care and you should work toward a john deere or the government. why would you predict them to lose their health

we will continue state regulation of insurance, but we will do it through what we call preemption. federal law will preempt state law or override state law in these areas where they would allow pre-existing conditions. >> to me afford insurance companies to continue [unintelligible] is that not going to increase everyone's premiums? >> the extent to which we deal with this business of the uninsured and having insurance, that brings more revenue into the insurance company. >> i am just trying to figure out what did this. but it is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with. it is one that is not even settled at this time. it is something that fits in with the american principle of individual responsibility. it is like the state if you decide to drive a car, and you have an individual responsibility to have car insurance. >> a few moments ago you said this bill, a john deere would not have health care. >> i did say that now. >> a few weeks ago you said you want better health care and you should work toward a john deere or the government. why would you predict them to lose their he

we will continue state regulation of insurance, but we will do it through what we call preemption. federal law will preempt state law or override state law in these areas where they would allow pre-existing conditions. >> to me afford insurance companies to continue [unintelligible] is that not going to increase everyone's premiums? >> the extent to which we deal with this business of the uninsured and having insurance, that brings more revenue into the insurance company. >> i am just trying to figure out what did this. but it is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with. it is one that is not even settled at this time. it is something that fits in with the american principle of individual responsibility. it is like the state if you decide to drive a car, and you have an individual responsibility to have car insurance. >> a few moments ago you said this bill, a john deere would not have health care. >> i did say that now. >> a few weeks ago you said you want better health care and you should work toward a john deere or the government. why would you predict them to lose their he