SCOTUS Blocks Vax Mandates

@sh76 said
Are you just using that as a rhetorical device or do you really believe that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos stole their fortunes?

This is Joe. Give a bit of latitude to these libs who do not understand capitalism, and economics, and the whole ball of wax. I think one here thinks Bezos just has $200B in cash. Sitting somewhere. Laughable stuff. Getting free checks in the mail does not take much thought, so, they aint thinkin'.

@wildgrass said
Merely a bad joke.

Yes, it was prob meant as a joke,, but it suggests the total (lack of) understanding of he who posted it.

@averagejoe1 said
Marauder, and I can't believe this hasn't been brought up,.....Why doesn't the government require Flu Vax. It is contagious, and , it kills.

Did Marauder, or someone, tackle this query??

@averagejoe1 said
No, it was your city council who makes laws, or county laws. Not a mandate
So, I'll ask the obvious question......how else should traffic be directed? The willy-nilly I mentioned?

It's a state crime to remove it. Yes, the county put it there, but the color and shape and font size of the sign is federally dictated.

It is still a mandate if it's coming from a regulatory agency. If SCOTUS heard my argument, I think they would agree with me. There's never been a fatality at that intersection. Very good sight lines in all directions. The speed limit is 25 mph.

All joking aside, though, it seems silly to have SCOTUS decide the location of stop signs. There's no clearly laid out law that defines where stop signs can and can't be, nor should there be. It's left up to the experts in traffic patterns and safety to keep it from being all willy nilly as you say.

This court doesn't have a principled way to sort out the good rules from the bad ones. In the past, that typically defers to federal agencies that make those rules. But now they've decided that this particular rule shouldn't exist because the threat level of the virus isn't high enough. When would it be high enough? Well there's this nugget in the majority opinion....

Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible

By striking down the law, they are saying those features don't currently exist, even though OSHA believes they do exist. What 'particular features' that need to be met are they referring to, specifically? They don't say. How does one determine whether that feature rises to the level at which regulation becomes permissible by SCOTUS standards? They are setting up themselves as the arbiters of regulatory action, which is very different from setting up a regulatory agency to make such decisions. As arbiters of regulation, they should be able to figure out whether that stop sign should be removed. My brake pads depend on it.

Here's one part of the dissenting opinion, which I think is very well written and logical (unlike the majority opinion):

Consistent with Congress’s directives, OSHA has long regulated risks that arise both inside and outside of the workplace. For example, OSHA has issued, and applied to nearly all workplaces, rules combating risks of fire, faulty electrical installations, and inadequate emergency exits—even though the dangers prevented by those rules arise not only in workplaces but in many physical facilities (e.g., stadiums, schools, hotels, even homes). .... Underlying everything else in this dispute is a single, simple question: Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from COVID–19? An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety, acting as Congress and the President authorized? Or a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces, and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes? Here, an agency charged by Congress with safeguarding employees from workplace dangers has decided that action is needed. ..... The agency’s Standard is informed by a half century of experience and expertise in handling workplace health and safety issues. The Standard also has the virtue of political accountability, for OSHA is responsible to the President, and the President is responsible to—and can be held to account by—the American public....And then, there is this Court. Its Members are elected by, and accountable to, no one. And we “lack[] the background, competence, and expertise to assess” workplace health and safety issues. South Bay United Pentecostal Church, 590 U. S., at ___ (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.) (slip op., at 2). When we are wise, we know enough to defer on matters like this one. When we are wise, we know not to displace the judgments of experts, acting within the sphere Congress marked out and under Presidential control, to deal with emergency conditions. Today, we are not wise. ... Without legal basis, the Court usurps a decision that rightfully belongs to others. It undercuts the capacity of the responsible federal officials, acting well within the scope of their authority, to protect American workers from grave danger.

Congress gave OSHA specific instructions to do exactly what they did here. I maintain that if the conservative court thinks this specific regulatory action by OSHA was unconstitutional, then they should have declared that the existence of the entire agency is so too. That would make their arguments a lot more logical.

@wildgrass said
Here's one part of the dissenting opinion, which I think is very well written and logical (unlike the majority opinion):
[quote]Consistent with Congress’s directives, OSHA has long regulated risks that arise both inside and outside of the workplace. For example, OSHA has issued, and applied to nearly all workplaces, rules combating risks of fire, faulty electrical installa ...[text shortened]... at the existence of the entire agency is so too. That would make their arguments a lot more logical.

To repeat: the ruling was not made on constitutional grounds. The SCOTUS majority pretended that the Congress that created OSHA did not give it the authority to deal with illnesses that also take place outside of the workplace. It was a statutory interpretation ruling not having anything to do with any supposed "right" not to be vaccinated during a deadly epidemic; Jacobson v. Massachusetts decided in 1905 made clear no such "right" existed.

@wildgrass said
Merely a bad joke.

Ah; okay.

Carry on, then. 😉

@averagejoe1 said
I think that you don't. Your mind is so full of fancy words, which I left in my profession so I could have more fun, that you are a bit muddled about the Constitution.
Do you defend it or not? Seems you or one of your cohorts want to change it to meet the modern age we live in. So, if you do, why do you keep referring to it as something to 'go-by'?
You are an ...[text shortened]... good points, and you know it.
Let's all go over to the thread of Biden wrapping it all up soon.

I think that you don't. Your mind is so full of fancy words, which I left in my profession so I could have more fun, that you are a bit muddled about the Constitution.


You didn't have a profession to leave Joe. You admitted to lying about your teaching job(s) You're just a Macdonald's employee with 2nd grade writing skills, who can barely string together a legible sentence. When it comes to the law and the Constitution, SH76 and No1Maruder are the real deals, you (I'm sorry to say) are clueless.

@no1marauder said
To repeat: the ruling was not made on constitutional grounds. The SCOTUS majority pretended that the Congress that created OSHA did not give it the authority to deal with illnesses that also take place outside of the workplace. It was a statutory interpretation ruling not having anything to do with any supposed "right" not to be vaccinated during a deadly epidemic; Jacobson v. Massachusetts decided in 1905 made clear no such "right" existed.

Thanks for repeating. The majority opinion makes even less sense now. The OSHA statute does not make that distinction (e.g. they regulate handrails, but people also fall down stairs outside the workplace). Wouldn't they need some sort of legal precedent or constitutional basis for distinguishing a handrail from a vaccine?

EDIT: I realize they don't need to do anything. They can say whatever they want. If the court wants to be taken seriously as judges and not partisan hacks, why are they overinterpreting statutes to include legislative prohibitions that don't exist? They could just as easily have overturned Jacobson or declared OSHA unconstitutional.

@wildgrass said
Here's one part of the dissenting opinion, which I think is very well written and logical (unlike the majority opinion):
[quote]Consistent with Congress’s directives, OSHA has long regulated risks that arise both inside and outside of the workplace. For example, OSHA has issued, and applied to nearly all workplaces, rules combating risks of fire, faulty electrical installa ...[text shortened]... at the existence of the entire agency is so too. That would make their arguments a lot more logical.

Yes. The TOTAL question is who decides. With all due respects, given the different views that libs and cons view everything, I simply could not have a liberal telling me what to do. I’m sorry. I can literally see AOC telling me to take a hypodermic needle over to my neighbor and shooting him in the arm. No thank you.

@mchill said
I think that you don't. Your mind is so full of fancy words, which I left in my profession so I could have more fun, that you are a bit muddled about the Constitution.


You didn't have a profession to leave Joe. You admitted to lying about your teaching job(s) You're just a Macdonald's employee with 2nd grade writing skills, who can barely string together a legible sentenc ...[text shortened]... w and the Constitution, SH76 and No1Maruder are the real deals, you (I'm sorry to say) are clueless.

You will be glad to know that what you say above let’s not hurt my feelings. The issues are all that we need to talk about. Everybody should be happy.

@wildgrass said
Thanks for repeating. The majority opinion makes even less sense now. The OSHA statute does not make that distinction (e.g. they regulate handrails, but people also fall down stairs outside the workplace). Wouldn't they need some sort of legal precedent or constitutional basis for distinguishing a handrail from a vaccine?

EDIT: I realize they don't need to do anyt ...[text shortened]... t don't exist? They could just as easily have overturned Jacobson or declared OSHA unconstitutional.

To take your example at face value, I don't think OSHA would be able to regulate handrails at employees' homes.

@averagejoe1 said
You will be glad to know that what you say above let’s not hurt my feelings. The issues are all that we need to talk about. Everybody should be happy.

So happy I didn't hurt your feelings. That was not my intention in the first place, but do yourself a favor, in the future, stick to the truth about yourself, and try to understand that laymen like us arguing about the Constitution with people who went through 3 years of law school, then into the legal profession would be like arguing the finder points of heart surgery with heart surgeons. It just doesn't make sense. I learned a long time ago in my business, if you're not a lawyer - don't try to be one. 🙂

@mchill said
I think that you don't. Your mind is so full of fancy words, which I left in my profession so I could have more fun, that you are a bit muddled about the Constitution.


You didn't have a profession to leave Joe. You admitted to lying about your teaching job(s) You're just a Macdonald's employee with 2nd grade writing skills, who can barely string together a legible sentenc ...[text shortened]... w and the Constitution, SH76 and No1Maruder are the real deals, you (I'm sorry to say) are clueless.

This is more likely than not.
This guy pontificates but it's all talk,
no substance, NEVER ANY FACTS.
And, for all his talk, when presented with
TRUE FACTS, he folds like a cheap suit....
Just check my thread, ''One of the Worst,'' for proof.

@mchill said
So happy I didn't hurt your feelings. That was not my intention in the first place, but do yourself a favor, in the future, stick to the truth about yourself, and try to understand that laymen like us arguing about the Constitution with people who went through 3 years of law school, then into the legal profession would be like arguing the finder points of heart surgery with he ...[text shortened]... e sense. I learned a long time ago in my business, if you're not a lawyer - don't try to be one. 🙂

Who told you I am not a lawyer? The Jimm fellow? Do you find your source reliable?
What if I am a lawyer, and telling the truth about myself? Why do you care about someone's profession when discussing issues of the day? If you think a person is not qualified to discuss an issue, why respond to that person? If you are a layman, and think for some reason that I am not a lawyer, why can I not be then considered a layman, and argue with you and other laymen? So many questions here.
How do you know that Marauder is a lawyer? 🤔 😕