Supreme Court blocks Biden's employer vaccine rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
Murrmurr said:
I'm glad the judges defended the constitution....since that's their job. Even in "a state of emergency" there are specific limits the executive branch must observe. I hope this ends it, but I don't know if the decision can be appealed or reviewed or not.
Click to expand...
How long does a valid "state of emergency" last in peace time has been my question all along. They keep extending it so they can keep mandating. I'm glad they didn't let them get away with this after TWO long years!
 
The law gives OSHA the right to impose strictures that promote public and worker safety. This agency is under control of the Executive which means Biden has the legal right to impose such strictures. Because of this insane ruling, many more thousands of people will die and it will cost the government multiple billions of dollars to take care of those who survive. Preventive medicine is always best. But those politically correct half wits in the court fail to understand that truth.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm glad the judges defended the constitution....since that's their job. Even in "a state of emergency" there are specific limits the executive branch must observe. I hope this ends it, but I don't know if the decision can be appealed or reviewed or not.
Click to expand...
It is their own individual INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Not giving an opinion on their interpretation but Defended is definitely the wrong term to use.
 
oldiebutgoody said:
The law gives OSHA the right to impose strictures that promote public and worker safety. This agency is under control of the Executive which means Biden has the legal right to impose such strictures. Because of this insane ruling, many more thousands of people will die and it will cost the government multiple billions of dollars to take care of those who survive. Preventive medicine is always best. But those politically correct half wits in the court fail to understand that truth.
Click to expand...
Funny how the "pro-life" members of SCOTUS are the ones who struck down the OSHA rule, which would no doubt save lives.

From what I understand, the rules state that if you're not vaccinated, you need to get tested once a week. That doesn't seem like too much to ask of workers. Granted, I haven't read it yet, but I believe that's the gist of it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Is it just a ruling about private businesses or also government contractors? The company I work for has government contracts and so we have had to follow the mandate, which personally I think is proper, you can't have government services shutting down because everyone gets sick. There is way too many single points of failure where I work, and I imagine other companies are equally 'skinny'. We only lost one employee who retired rather than get vaccinated, but we have lost two who are retiring rather than be forced to go back to working in the office. We almost were going to lose a whole set of the most vital programmers, but their manager had a brilliant inspiration to somehow change all their home locations to outside the range of the office buildings so they don't appear on "the list" of employees who never went back to the office. I am unfortunately on the list but Omicron has temporarily saved me from being fired because we are all back on work-from-home now.
 
Haven't looked at this. However I sure hope the SC made the decision based on constitutional and legal grounds, not political. I think the question of what power or authority the government has based on current law to set and enforce vaccine mandates is an important one.

I believe the day will come when we are facing a disease much worse than Covid. We need to plan now on how to react to that.
 
Pepper said:
It is their own individual INTERPRETATION of the Constitution. Not giving an opinion on their interpretation but Defended is definitely the wrong term to use.
Click to expand...
In this decision, I believe it is the correct term. Not because the proposed policy says "mandatory vaccines" but because are other details in this proposal that are unconstitutional - specifically, discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
That's your opinion. That's your interpretation.
Click to expand...
No, hon, it's the court's interpretation.

I just added an edit to my post as you posted - specifically, the court interpreted some details in the proposal as discriminatory, which is unconstitutional. I don't think the problem was mandatory vaccines....that IS my interpretation, though. :)
 
Last edited:
Several federal circuits had rulings from Suits filed. The 5th Circuit issued a Stay of Proceedings enjoining (forbidding) OSHA to enforce it's vaccine mandate. When the cases were consolidated under 28 USC 2112 (a) of the Judiciary Code, to the 6th Circuit, they lifted the Stay, the SC reversed the Stay, meaning OSHA can not at this time mandate shots. The main element for appeal was whether OSHA had the so called "Delegated powers", meaning they could act like Congress, to do so. The SC ruled NO.

I guess that's it in a legal nutshell, as I read it.
 
I read a bit about the OSHA rule and it states that if you don't get vaccinated, you need to wear a facemask and get tested once a week. That's what SCOTUS ruled against. So there are basically three options: get vaccinated, wear a facemask and get tested, or find another job.

Justice Thomas, being the dishonest a-hole he is lied about it and claimed there were only two options and that you either had to choose between getting injected with something you think might harm you or getting fired. Lying bastard.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top