As you know, we've had a few words to say about the Supreme Court's decision last week in Wyeth v. Levine (here, here, and here).
But we weren't alone.
Jim Copland argues in Monday's Washington Times that Congress should adopt an adminstrative compensation scheme (akin to the vaccine act) that would simultaneously (1) protect drug companies from liability for drugs produced according to the FDA's requirements and (2) provide compensation to patients who suffered adverse events.
Gordon Cravitz argues in Monday's Wall Street Journal that the Wyeth v. Levine decision will put a drag on innovation by drug companies.
(Hat tip to Point of Law for both of those links.)
Peter Schuck argues in The New Republic that the FDA is more institutionally competent to assess the warnings on drug labels than are lay juries. Moreover, "the FDA's flaws -- and there are many -- can at least be remedied by Congress, to which it is highly accountable."
Michael Krauss at Point of Law deplores the state of preemption jurisprudence generally and suggests that the effect of Levine "may be confined to FDA matters, because of the lack of a pre-emption clause in the statute."
Russell Jackson analyzes at his blog how Levine will affect preemption analysis under regulatory schemes that differ from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
And Jonathan Adler (at the Volokh Conspiracy) says that Levine is further evidence that the "Roberts Court" may not be as pro-business as some have suggested it would be.
If that's not enough, Point of Law has another post that collects other reactions to the decision from around the web.