SCOTUS Blocks Vax Mandates

@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.

Note, We try to drill it into Lib minds that the opening up freedom of the govt/president to tell us what the hell to do, will lead to MORE of them telling us what the hell to do. We have said it a lot in the threads, yet they do not respond in any way, shape or form. It is a true danger, and they care not.
The flu is contagious... Next they will mandate flu shots? C'mon libs, chime in on this. Be brave. You can't. You will instead chew your pillows.
Here is some fun. Everyone tell us, even if it is far-fetched, what are some examples of what they (Biden, libs, agencies) would next do with mandating the hell out of us.
Silly one: You must wear hats and long-sleeve shirts, as the sun causes skin cancer!!!!!! Yes, silly....but, is it??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrr

@no1marauder said
How many times does this have to be explained to you?

You have a right to bodily sovereignty but you do not have a right to expose others to dangers through your (in)actions. "The right to swing your fist ends at the next man's nose".

There is no "right" to spread a deadly, contagious disease to other people.

You have no .right to restrict the movement, and to impose conditions on healthy people

@sh76 said
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 rul ...[text shortened]... ng to the idea that if something is a hazard of daily life, it's not a workplace-specific condition.

But obviously the problem is related to employment (people getting COVID at work), but that problem is not specific to employment. I think there are lots of OSHA regulations that also apply to environments outside the workplace. OSHA is very broadly authorized by congress to mandate things like this. Unless they are saying OSHA itself is unconstitutional, this decision reads to me more like they are playing into some sort of anti-vax culture war than interpreting law. At the very least it's inconsistent with court precedent (which they do not address).

You might have already mentioned it earlier in the thread (that I didn't read) but what about the courts reasoning is not convincing to you?

@wildgrass said
But obviously the problem is related to employment (people getting COVID at work), but that problem is not specific to employment. I think there are lots of OSHA regulations that also apply to environments outside the workplace. OSHA is very broadly authorized by congress to mandate things like this. Unless they are saying OSHA itself is unconstitutional, this decision read ...[text shortened]... ier in the thread (that I didn't read) but what about the courts reasoning is not convincing to you?

They know of adverse reactions (even if you've put your head in the sand on this issue) any coercion they impose makes them responsible for those adverse reactions.

@averagejoe1 said
Note, We try to drill it into Lib minds that the opening up freedom of the govt/president to tell us what the hell to do, will lead to MORE of them telling us what the hell to do. We have said it a lot in the threads, yet they do not respond in any way, shape or form. It is a true danger, and they care not.
The flu is contagious... Next they will mandate flu shots? ...[text shortened]... -sleeve shirts, as the sun causes skin cancer!!!!!! Yes, silly....but, is it??? Brrrrrrrrrrrrr

Sure, you have a lot of grievances with government. I get that.

I'm trying to get at the legal reasoning though. Vaccine mandates might be unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to be what the courts conservatives are saying. There have been a couple of Roberts court cases that have gone this way. The Obamacare ruling for example. They are splitting hairs, but in doing so it reveals some things that are quite inconsistent with what has been going on for over a hundred years. If they want to limit government power they should do that.

This seems sloppy, like they were following cultural opposition and didn't put very much thought in the legal reasoning at all.

@wajoma said
They know of adverse reactions (even if you've put your head in the sand on this issue) any coercion they impose makes them responsible for those adverse reactions.

That was not the logic used by the courts majority, and does not apply to similar government mandates like seat belts.

@wildgrass said
Sure, you have a lot of grievances with government. I get that.

I'm trying to get at the legal reasoning though. Vaccine mandates might be unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to be what the courts conservatives are saying. There have been a couple of Roberts court cases that have gone this way. The Obamacare ruling for example. They are splitting hairs, but in doing ...[text shortened]... y were following cultural opposition and didn't put very much thought in the legal reasoning at all.

I am afraid politics will start being a factor with decisions. Like, what will be‘the effect on society with this ruling. Man, would that open Pandora’s box. A lot of ‘cultural opposition’ to say the least.
As to ruling in favor of Obamacare, it was political. To reach their ends, they called something a tax which was not a tax. What a croc.

@wildgrass said
That was not the logic used by the courts majority, and does not apply to similar government mandates like seat belts.

Do you deny that people have adverse reactions to the shot, and that in some cases die. I'm not talking about the frequency of this just that you are aware it does happen.

Have people had similar medical reactions when wearing a seat belt.

Ok, we're getting somewhere, you'll no longer be making that comparison or using seat belts as an example.

@wajoma said
You have no .right to restrict the movement, and to impose conditions on healthy people

Hey Sport,
They do in NEW ZEALAND
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-response-planning/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinations
https://www.hcamag.com/nz/specialisation/employment-law/mandatory-vaccination-policies-in-new-zealand-employer-duty-vs-individual-rights/311068

@jimm619 said
Hey Sport,
They do in NEW ZEALAND
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-response-planning/covid-19-mandatory-vaccinations
https://www.hcamag.com/nz/specialisation/employment-law/mandatory-vaccination-policies-in-new-zealand-employer-duty-vs-individual-rights/311068

Not sure what your point is here Jim, I'm aware of the NZ situation.

And that has shaped my view on the drama, the thousands of businesses destroyed, lives ruined, families and friends divided, the despair, jobs and careers ended, experienced police, teachers, doctors, healthcare workers jobless the country has lost the hundreds of years of their experience, I've been to the protests and heard ordinary NZers tell their story, they're not public speakers, they don't want to stand in front of a crowd of strangers, their voices shake but they have to tell it.

The virus didn't do this to NZ, the state did, and that's why I say to you, to everyone, resist, resist, resist.

@wajoma said
Not sure what your point is here Jim, I'm aware of the NZ situation.

And that has shaped my view on the drama, the thousands of businesses destroyed, lives ruined, families and friends divided, the despair, jobs and careers ended, experienced police, teachers, doctors, healthcare workers jobless the country has lost the hundreds of years of their experience, I've been to th ...[text shortened]... dn't do this to NZ, the state did, and that's why I say to you, to everyone, resist, resist, resist.

Hope things get better in KIWI LAND.
You seem awful busy with your patronizing
opinions in regards to problems of
The United States when, according to you,
the situation in KIWI LAND is dire.
Charity and, if I may say, unwanted and unqualified,
advice are best dispensed at home

@wajoma said
Do you deny that people have adverse reactions to the shot, and that in some cases die. I'm not talking about the frequency of this just that you are aware it does happen.

Have people had similar medical reactions when wearing a seat belt.

Ok, we're getting somewhere, you'll no longer be making that comparison or using seat belts as an example.

In the article Joe posted, they cite several examples in which seat belts kill people. (e.g. trapped in car on fire or under water).

I am not denying anything. I do not think the job of SCOTUS is to judge relative risk of public safety measures. They deal with legality. If they think public safety measures, in general, are unconstitutional then they should say so.

@wajoma said
You have no .right to restrict the movement, and to impose conditions on healthy people

The crux. Liberals truly believe they have that right.

@athousandyoung said
The inalienable right to life means that others are forbidden from killing me. Right are prohibitions on others acting on me - not sovereignty of action for me.

That's one way of looking at it, but the distinction needs to be made, a right is not a prohibition. If you have the right to life a corollary of this is that the other fellow has the same right. This is why you may not kill him, it's not a prohibition on killing but the recognition of the other fellows right to life. If you kill him you have violated that right. You have a sovereignty of action, the other bloke does too. The reciprocal nature of rights.

An important distinction and appreciate you raising this point.

@wajoma said
You have no .right to restrict the movement, and to impose conditions on healthy people

While not a "right", societies impose many rules and regulations restricting movement (i.e. traffic lights) and imposing "conditions" on healthy people in exercising its legitimate power to protect the public health and safety.

IF the majority are displeased with those rules, there are these things called "elections".