[www.washingtonpost.com]

The Supreme Court on Thursday stopped the Biden administration’s vaccination-or-testing requirement on the nation’s largest employers, expressing doubt that there is legal authority for such a broad mandate.

But the court allowed a different policy, which requires vaccinations for most health-care workers at the facilities that receive Medicaid and Medicare funds.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh were the only members of the court in the majority of both orders. Essentially, they found Congress had given federal agencies the power to impose the requirement on health-care workers at facilities receiving federal funds, but that there was no authority to impose sweeping requirements in workplaces across the nation.

Liberal Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would have allowed the workplace requirements. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett objected to the health-care worker requirements.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

I think it’s funny in a sad sort of way that this SCOTUS (or the conservative majority) were willing to bend over backwards to allow all kinds of shenanigans for Trump’s border wall, his travel bans, and his general xenophobia - he’s the president, and if he considers immigration to be a national emergency, who are we to say otherwise?

…and then when Biden tries to deal with a real, honest-to-God once-in-a-century emergency (that’s killed 800,000 Americans!), they scrunch up their faces like they bit on a lemon and say ooh, we don’t like that.

Oh well, it’ll make for interesting and entertaining reading in future history books.

Does anyone else feel like conservative politicians and justices are trying to prolong the Great Dying?

Quote
S. Pupp
Does anyone else feel like conservative politicians and justices are trying to prolong the Great Dying?

You know, this doesn’t bother me as much as it should, considering who’s being culled.



I know, I’m a terrible person.

Quote
pdq

Quote
S. Pupp
Does anyone else feel like conservative politicians and justices are trying to prolong the Great Dying?

You know, this doesn’t bother me as much as it should, considering who’s being culled.



I know, I’m a terrible person.

I tend to agree, but the problem is those being culled are taking up all the space and resources at hospitals, which hurts non-stupid people who might have a car crash or heart attack.

The SCOTUS has become a @#$%& joke.

---

History will not judge the Robert's Court well. Opening the floodgates of corruption (only very overt quid pro quo is corruption), unusually high amounts of partisanship, unusually high amounts of hypocrisy, legal findings that rest on false claims of truth and flawed reasoning, allowing the suppression of the right to vote, etc.

---

e pluribus unum

Let's see. It's going too far for the government to limit or require behavior that is intended to save lives and prevent serious physical harm. But it's entirely OK for a state goverment to protect the lives and health of would-be mothers by creating incredibly limiting rules regarding abortion establishments. The only legalistic nitpick is that Biden's requirement is ruled out as being beyond the wishes of congress or something like that, whereas state governments did what they did. But this goes contrary to many Supreme Court rulings which protect personal rights and workers' rights against overstepping by any government or agency.

I'd looooove to hear an explanation of why this is okay for healthcare workplaces and not other ones.

---

Quote
mattkime
I'd looooove to hear an explanation of why this is okay for healthcare workplaces and not other ones.

Oh, it’s because they’re getting money from federal programs (medi-whatever)

What that has to do with any of this is something I won’t pretend to rationalize.

What’s truly bizarre is that the conservatives are suddenly on the side of “workers” here by, I don’t know, making it easy to go to work?? It’s the employers who said verifying and testing was just so gosh darn onerous.

As usual, none of this stands up to scrutiny.

On the old days, back when SCOTUS was liberal we got explanations about helping people and rights. Today it’s about “freedoms”. Notice the difference: it’s all word salad now.

Quote
mattkime
I'd looooove to hear an explanation of why this is okay for healthcare workplaces and not other ones.

Fundamentally, I think it is because this court is dominated by justices that have a strong propensity to think that government intrusion into private property is just a bad thing to be avoided. Except when they want to make exceptions, of course.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Ca Bob
Let's see. It's going too far for the government to limit or require behavior that is intended to save lives and prevent serious physical harm. But it's entirely OK for a state goverment to protect the lives and health of would-be mothers by creating incredibly limiting rules regarding abortion establishments. The only legalistic nitpick is that Biden's requirement is ruled out as being beyond the wishes of congress or something like that, whereas state governments did what they did. But this goes contrary to many Supreme Court rulings which protect personal rights and workers' rights against overstepping by any government or agency.

Yep, the government can’t require you to wear a mask but can compel you to give birth.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

The OSHA rule to vaccinate in companies with over 100 employees falls.
The HHS rule to vaccinate in medical facilities receiving federal funder stands.

What's the status of the gov't contractor rule to vaccinate employees? I know that doesn't have the broad capacity the OSHA rule did.

Frankly, at this point, I don't care about vaccine mandates per se, but I sure hope that the unvaccinated can at least be made to pay for the excessive cost of their treatment that could have been avoided. I know if I had a loved one who died because they couldn't get treatment due to hospital overcrowding, I'd be seeking information on any unvaccinated patients for a wrongful death suit. It might be a stretch, but at some point the rubber band of reality has to snap back hard against these willfully selfish, misguided individuals.

---

g=

The Federalist Society is in charge. Anti regulations, anti worker, anti consumer. It’s all about the robber barons.

Quote
Pam
The Federalist Society is in charge. Anti regulations, anti worker, anti consumer. It’s all about the robber barons.

---

e pluribus unum

Gotta keep the engines of the economy turning no matter the cost. Arbeit macht frei.

---

The Supreme Court did not actually say that the Federal Govt cannot create a mask mandate. It said that OSHA, as OSHA's mission stands as created by Congress, cannot create a mask mandate.

Quote

Describing the mandate as a “significant encroachment into the lives — and health — of a vast number of employees,” the court emphasized that Congress must speak clearly if it intends to give a federal agency the authority to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.”

In this case, the court continued, Congress did not. It gave the Department of Labor the power to establish safety standards for the workplace, rather than “broad public health measures.” Although COVID-19 “is a risk that occurs in many workplaces,” the court acknowledged, it isn’t a risk that workers encounter simply by virtue of being at work – COVID-19 spreads virtually anywhere that people gather. “Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the court concluded. And indeed, the court noted, the fact that OSHA has never adopted a similar regulation is a “telling indication” that the vaccine-or-test mandate exceeds the agency’s power.

[amylhowe.com]

---

A nonsense dodge. Apart from their homes, jobs are the place workers spend most of their time. OSHA rules are quite literally and specifically meant to keep workplaces safe for workers. The danger of contracting COVID outside the workplace can be mitigated at will by the worker. (Not so at work, if your unmasked coworker is breathing aerosols at you all day).

It’s like saying OSHA can’t make rules about, say, construction equipment safety because construction workers can buy and use a saw outside the workplace.

PS - and the “telling” point that OSHA has never issued a similar rule completely ignores the fact that we have never had a pandemic anything remotely like COVID since ‘71, when OSHA was created.

A quote from a public health expert in today’s paper:

Quote

The United States is already "languishing,’’ with a 60% vaccination rate, near the bottom of peer nations, said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University.

“The OSHA rule was truly the president’s last best shot at significantly boosting the vaccination rate,’’ Gostin said. But the court, “in a very highly partisan way, intentionally tried to handcuff the president in doing what he needs to do.’’

This is exactly what happened; the justifications offered by SCOTUS in doing so all fall apart with the least scrutiny.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2022 09:15AM by pdq.

I find pdq persuasive- seems like another case of working backwards from the desired ruling.

Also, love the way they noted Covid precautions as being ‘political’.

Step 1 - politicize something
Step 2 - cite politicalization as reason Biden doesn’t have power

---