Supreme Court To Decide If Monsanto GMO Patents Are Valid

tomhath writes with this exerpt from a Reuters story: "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear an Indiana farmer's appeal that challenges the scope of Monsanto Co.'s patent rights on its Roundup Ready seeds. Mr. Bowman bought and planted 'commodity seeds' from a grain elevator. Those soybean seeds were a mix and included some that contained Monsanto's technology. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the objections of the Obama administration, which had urged the justices to leave the lower court rulings in place."

Comments

Re:I still think this guy should countersue . . .

[terminal.dk]

He can probably not sell his seeds to Europe, we do not like genetically modified foods here. We let the americans be the Guinea Pigs of their own products.
It seems like the US Government has the same slogan like "The Body Shop" when it comes to food: "Product not tested on animals". There is enough humans to test on.

Why is the Obama administration objecting ?

[Taco Cowboy]

... The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the objections of the Obama administration ...

Why is the Obama administration trying so hard to stop the Supreme Court from hearing this case?
 
Can someone fill me in, please?
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re:Why is the Obama administration objecting ?

[Alarash]

To be precise, the criticism was based on the fact that the authors of the study didn't release all of their findings because they want to point out that the European Union didn't publish all the findings of the studies allowing GMO on the market.

And the author claims that a lot of the feedback is lobbying from Monsanto and others, but I can't objectively decide if that's true or not.

Re:Why is the Obama administration objecting ?

[anagama]

This man is extremely dangerous not only for America, but for the entire world. Obama might not be any good, but Romney will destroy the American dream, and several other countries along with it.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Mitt, but you underestimate the danger Obama poses. Obama has taken radical Bush policies and by virtue of Democratic silence, has made them the new normal. Obama continues due process free detention with nary a peep from his party. He has extended this radical policy to include due process free execution. Libya destroyed the war powers act (the liberal achievement from the Viet Nam debacle which tried to put the power of war with congress where it belongs), thus setting the precedent that a president can start any war, anywhere, anytime, and Congress can go get bent.

These are dangerous and radical policies -- the type of monarchical powers we fought a revolution to escape. One man should not have the power to imprison you with no oversight, kill you with no oversight, or start a war with no oversight. The sad fact is, it took a Democrat to achieve all these things -- even GWB couldn't do the last two.

That is the danger of constant lesser evil voting. It leads inevitably to more evil. I suspect that if Mitt won however, Democrats would go back to pushing back against civil liberties violations and war as a kind of political pressure point. Maybe not, but at least we'd then all be clear that Democrats are the "New GOP".