SCOTUS Blocks Vax Mandates

@metal-brain said
Not viruses. That is unprecedented.

What is next? Mandatory cold and flu shots from OSHA?
The SCOTUS shot your covid extremism down 2 to 1.

OSHA's mission is to protect workers from hazards, including illnesses: "SEC.
2.
Congressional Findings and Purpose
(a)
29 USC 651
The Congress finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments." https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshact

The scope of this pandemic fits easily into the emergency standards language just quoted.

The SCOTUS decided wrongly, as it has many times in the past and will undoubtedly do so in the future. Right wingers have always been generally hostile to government regulation of big business of any sort and that goes double for regulation that would protect workers.

@metal-brain said
Not viruses. That is unprecedented.

What is next? Mandatory cold and flu shots from OSHA?
The SCOTUS shot your covid extremism down 2 to 1.

Libs cannot find it in themselves to be responsible for themselves, and to free themselves from govt control. I hate it for them, I truly do.

@averagejoe1 said
Libs cannot find it in themselves to be responsible for themselves, and to free themselves from govt control. I hate it for them, I truly do.

Insisting you have some "right" to spread deadly diseases still?

@no1marauder said
While there has to be some limit on the scope of a Congressional delegation of power (they couldn't name a Secretary of War and authorize him to declare war for example), Gorsuch's concurrence gives absolutely no guidance as to what such a limit could be and is untethered to any Constitutional provision. And given the close fit between the regulation in this case and the ...[text shortened]... rine" which would vastly expand judicial power. It's a 20th Century invention of right wing jurists.

"Gorshuch's concurrence 'gives no guidance'.."
Marauder............judges are supposed to give guidance? This is a question. Please elaborate on this statement.

@averagejoe1 said
"Gorshuch's concurrence 'gives no guidance'.."
Marauder............judges are supposed to give guidance? This is a question. Please elaborate on this statement.

Yes, when they give their reasons in an opinion and suggest future decisions be based on a principle they should generally say how that principle should be applied.

At the very least, it should give necessary guidance to other judges esp. in lower level courts.

@no1marauder said
OSHA's mission is to protect workers from hazards, including illnesses: "SEC.
2.
Congressional Findings and Purpose
(a)
29 USC 651
The Congress finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disa ...[text shortened]... gulation of big business of any sort and that goes double for regulation that would protect workers.

Let us suppose you are exactly right, that the pandemic qualifies as something OSHA should 'take over'.
But that is not the issue of SCOTUS in this thread. Their job is to interpret and apply the constitution to squabbles under the law, and they simply find that none of this fits what you want it to.
Gorsuch and the rest of the court made their decision within the province of their mission. You seem to want them to start ruling the USA. You seem to want them to understand that you are right, they are wrong, and that they should do what Biden wants them to do. You want to send Suzianne down there with a sign,, march around. They are there to interpret law, not make it.
They heard brilliant lawyers make two arguments, and ruled according to the constitution, which is their sole mission. It maintains equal justice under the law. Equal to you is to make everyone do what liberals tell them to do.
Please acknowledge that you preach EVERYTHING other than independence and self reliance. Sucks.

@averagejoe1 said
Let us suppose you are exactly right, that the pandemic qualifies as something OSHA should 'take over'.
But that is not the issue of SCOTUS in this thread. Their job is to interpret and apply the constitution to squabbles under the law, and they simply find that none of this fits what you want it to.
Gorsuch and the rest of the court made their decision within ...[text shortened]...
Please acknowledge that you preach EVERYTHING other than independence and self reliance. Sucks.

Point me to the part of the Constitution they relied on to make this decision.

Your idea of "self-reliance" is to have some "right" to spread contagious diseases to other people. I find no basis for such a "right" in any of the beliefs of the Framers.

@sh76 said
Putting aside the politics (very hard, I know), let's look at the basis for the opinion. The basis was actually quite narrow. It's wasn't constitutional and it certainly wasn't about whether the vax mandate is a good idea. In essence, the Court concluded that COVID is not "occupational" i.e., it has nothing to do with the office. COVID transmission isn't a risk that's unique to ...[text shortened]... onable grounds to do so, but you need to start by addressing why you think this argument is invalid.

I've not read through this whole thread, but this is a good explanatory post and seems like a good place to comment. I don't understand the "hazards of daily life" argument as a means to strike down federal regulations. The federal government regulates this kind of stuff all the time.

It seems the anti-vaxxers have tied themselves in knots trying to rationalize why this regulatory action is unconstitutional. They mention something about this being a "gene vaccine" or "but it's going in MY body" but none of that forms the basis of reasoning by the conservative court. They are arguing that regulations on daily life hazards are unconstitutional. But we have building codes and speed limits and drug laws and cross walks and vaccine mandates already in place, and these things have been in place for a long long time.

Can you explain how regulations on human behavior during a pandemic is a uniquely unconstitutional regulation vs. other regulations like speed limits or hand railings? I cannot find this in the opinion.

@mott-the-hoople said
you have no idea why they decided as they did, just your pious arrogance coming out.

LOL do you know that SCOTUS writes opinions that lay out their logic?

@wildgrass said
I've not read through this whole thread, but this is a good explanatory post and seems like a good place to comment. I don't understand the "hazards of daily life" argument as a means to strike down federal regulations. The federal government regulates this kind of stuff all the time.

It seems the anti-vaxxers have tied themselves in knots trying to rationalize why this ...[text shortened]... ulation vs. other regulations like speed limits or hand railings? I cannot find this in the opinion.

This article shows how there are so many 'takes' on the issue. Most guys like myself, in a nutshell, just are sick of government. One step at a time, they will chip away at our freedom. https://academic.oup.com/phe/article/12/3/237/5602463?login=true

@no1marauder said
Insisting you have some "right" to spread deadly diseases still?

Insisting you have a right to impose conditions and restrict the rights of healthy people to go about their business still?

@averagejoe1 said
This article shows how there are so many 'takes' on the issue. Most guys like myself, in a nutshell, just are sick of government. One step at a time, they will chip away at our freedom. https://academic.oup.com/phe/article/12/3/237/5602463?login=true

This article argues that the rationale for seat belt laws and vaccination mandates are the same. Moreover, there is plenty of legal precedent for mandating both behaviors.

But the conservatives in the vaccine mandate case wrote this:

Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life... would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

This statement is false. There is lots of court precedent upholding federal authorizations for similar limitations to human behavior.

I understand the sick of government argument. Me too. I just think the court is being inconsistent here, which is legally problematic. If the constitution supports an argument to limit government authority, then the court should just write that. Otherwise the dissenting opinion seems more logical.

@wildgrass said
This article argues that the rationale for seat belt laws and vaccination mandates are the same. Moreover, there is plenty of legal precedent for mandating both behaviors.

But the conservatives in the vaccine mandate case wrote this:
[quote]Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life... would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congr ...[text shortened]... thority, then the court should just write that. Otherwise the dissenting opinion seems more logical.

Wearing a seat belt can cause you to have a seizure and go into a coma?

@no1marauder said
Point me to the part of the Constitution they relied on to make this decision.

Your idea of "self-reliance" is to have some "right" to spread contagious diseases to other people. I find no basis for such a "right" in any of the beliefs of the Framers.

I bet it was difficult for you type the phrase self-reliance. You surely didn't love doing it. Govt don't cotton to self-reliant people.

@wildgrass said
I've not read through this whole thread, but this is a good explanatory post and seems like a good place to comment. I don't understand the "hazards of daily life" argument as a means to strike down federal regulations. The federal government regulates this kind of stuff all the time.

It seems the anti-vaxxers have tied themselves in knots trying to rationalize why this ...[text shortened]... ulation vs. other regulations like speed limits or hand railings? I cannot find this in the opinion.

The "hazards of daily life" argument is relevant only insofar as that it could potentially make a problem not related to employment. While this doesn't mean that it can never be regulated, it might (according to the Court) make it outside OSHA's mandate. Remember that OSHA is designed to regulate employment settings.

The building codes and speed limits are generally state rules. But even to the extent they're federal, they wouldn't necessarily be promulgated by an agency that is designed to regulate the workplace.

As I said above, I'm not entirely convinced by the Court's reasoning, but there is something to the idea that if something is a hazard of daily life, it's not a workplace-specific condition.