<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Low Tar Goes to High Court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/</link>
	<description>Res ipsa loquitur (&#34;The thing itself speaks&#34;)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:51:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: $800 Billion Up in Smoke. Court Throws Out Massive Class Action on Light Cigarettes &#171; JONATHAN TURLEY</title>
		<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/#comment-10302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[$800 Billion Up in Smoke. Court Throws Out Massive Class Action on Light Cigarettes &#171; JONATHAN TURLEY]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 04:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/#comment-10302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] marketing of the product as light. The Maine case is Philip Morris v. Good, et al. (07-562). Click here  and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] marketing of the product as light. The Maine case is Philip Morris v. Good, et al. (07-562). Click here  and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deeply worried</title>
		<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/#comment-6864</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[deeply worried]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/#comment-6864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, Riegel v Medtronic came down 8-1 supporting pre-emption. Pretty predictable except for the division.

I find it utterly hypocritical as we all know that in the last seven years the regulatory agencies have been run by appointees highly solicitous of the interests of the regulated.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, Riegel v Medtronic came down 8-1 supporting pre-emption. Pretty predictable except for the division.</p>
<p>I find it utterly hypocritical as we all know that in the last seven years the regulatory agencies have been run by appointees highly solicitous of the interests of the regulated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: deeply worried</title>
		<link>http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/#comment-5998</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[deeply worried]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:55:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/20/low-tar-goes-to-high-court/#comment-5998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yet another pre-emption case?

In the Bush years the regulatory agencies have been anything but.

Pre-emption based on Bush Era regulatory decisions is highly suspect as simply an end-run around Congress and an attempt to nullify state tort law.

Or so is argued here:

http://acslaw.org/node/5908]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yet another pre-emption case?</p>
<p>In the Bush years the regulatory agencies have been anything but.</p>
<p>Pre-emption based on Bush Era regulatory decisions is highly suspect as simply an end-run around Congress and an attempt to nullify state tort law.</p>
<p>Or so is argued here:</p>
<p><a href="http://acslaw.org/node/5908" rel="nofollow">http://acslaw.org/node/5908</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

