I grew up on Mad magazine, and one of my favorite features was “What they say…What they really mean.” And I’m reminded of that feature with this L.A. Times report on the Food and Drug Administration staff’s opposition to preemption.

Digression, first off, to credit reader JW on the pithy term “Kleptocracy” to describe the current regime’s fondness for allowing all its friends to gather at the trough. JDub says that he got it from wiki. Even so, his reverb is worthy of thanks and recognition.

And then some legal geek background on preemption. It’s a federal legal doctrine–based in the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause–that allows federal law to preempt or displace or block all state laws in a particular field. “State laws” is read broadly to include even a claim that might be based on state law. What it means for purposes of the kleptocracy is that a corporate wrongdoer who injures a citizen need not answer in court if the claim is preempted by federal law.

So one more little piece of foundation for this forehead smacker. Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court hears argument in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, Case No. 06-1249. In that case, the Bush Administration and FDA counsel are arguing that federal Food and Drug Act should preempt state law claims.  That’s to say, if you’re injured by a dangerous drug regulated by the FDA, our kleptocrats believe that you shouldn’t be able to sue.

The LA Times article demonstrates the inane basis of the argument. FDA staff knows full well that the agency does not and cannot protect consumers from drug company mistakes and misconduct. So it’s folly to assert that preemption should limit these claims. Back to Mad. They say: “Preemption is the best way to protect consumers because the FDA rigorously monitors drug safety.” What they really mean: “These consumer lawsuits from unsafe products are eating at our profits. We don’t like them.”

David Sugerman