It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations because the corporations have more resources than the DOJ so it’s hard to win. In addition a lot of DOJ leaders don’t want to harm their chances at getting a cushy job at one of these corporations.

DOJ did get at least $2 billion (their press release also says $8?) previously.

I hope they intervene here and or follow up with criminal charges against the individual Sacklers as individuals.

> It starts with the DOJ. They are afraid of going after big corporations

DoJ can't (except in special circumstances) legally stand in the place of harmed individuals and go after liable actors; because this a bankruptcy case DoJ is involved though, and opposes the settlement, as stated in the article.

Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/holder-big-banks-...

I also remember reading a book about epo and J&J. There the situation also was that the government prosecutors were reluctant to touch the case because they knew J&J would outspend them with their lawyers. Then a private lawyer took on the case and after years reached a settlement but in the process was close to bankrupting his law firm.

How the hell do you outspend the federal government (Lemme guess, you lobby congress or curry favor with the executive to put limits on the amount of spending you can do on cases that look suspiciously like yours).

> How the hell do you outspend the federal government?

Veey easily if you are a big corp and its an existential threat; the DoJ has lots of funding, sure, but also lots of competing priorities.

Very simple. These agencies are underfunded. The IRS also can’t afford to do enough audits.

> Here is an example from the financial crisis in 2008

I am not disputing the existence of the general phenomenon, I am saying the facts of the immediate case (including those directly in the article) contradict the assertion that it is the factor responsible for the decision at issue in the case under discussion.

In modern democracies it should be via legislation, and enabled by elected officials. In practice, it should be difficult to elect parties that promote corporate-hostile policies.

Even if it exists, it's not something the public has true access to. These laws are not made for the benefit of the masses.

Judges can be impeached by your elected officials, so you can demand that of your representatives.

Demanding anything of a representative that goes contra to their donors, who grace both sides with their money, is a quick exercise in failure.

Doesn't that run counter to the idea of an independent judiciary?

Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke. Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election.

The incentives associated with having your career tied to elections can end up being suboptimal, so we could debate what the most effective method would be, but it's an example of how a judge can be removed from power by the public.

> Independent Judiciary means independent of the executive and legislative branches. It doesn't mean immunity to public rebuke.

This seems to be confirmed by the first sentence of the wikipedia article on "Judicial independence", but the second sentence also mentions not being subject to influence from "private or partisan interests".

>Plenty of judges have to renew their mandate by standing for election.

this is mostly a US thing, and only in certain states. Federal judges are appointed AFAIK.

Private means only for one person or group. It doesn't apply. And public rebuke doesn't imply partisanship.

Is the idea of an independent judiciary just a myth to manufacture consent?

It seems obvious to me that judges apply their own ideologies in their rulings. But IANAL, maybe I'm just too cynical.

Nullify the jury of the people with the pitchforks.