Supreme Court blocks vaccine mandate for large businesses

[Jredbaron96]

Then you should no problem calling America a Constitutional republic/democracy which is a more precise than calling America a democracy.

It's a meaningless distinction. Calling American a democracy is just as accurate as calling it a republic.

 

[CharisRose]

No, that is the precise description, but only the uneducated still claim that is is not a democracy.

It is not. The precise description is A Constitutional republic/democracy.

 

[CharisRose]

It's a meaningless distinction. Calling American a democracy is just as accurate as calling it a republic.

Then why do you seem to have a problem with calling America a Constitutional republic/democracy?

 

[CharisRose]

Yeah no. This is a nonsensical distinction invented by the right wing.

Nice try. We will need to agree to disagree.

It is time to stop since we clearly think differently. We are just going back and forth with no end in sight.

Thank you for the posts and hoping you and yours the best in life.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[Greenbeard]

OSHA authority is for workplace safety. Which is one on the distinctions the court made. Covid is not a workplace specific issue.

I’m old enough to remember all the clamoring for liability shields for employers. Apparently employers do face exposure for failing to create COVID-safe(r) work environments, so why should the agency responsible for defining such things not be an appropriate referee here?

 

[Superfly]

Then you opposed the decriminalization of spreading HIV to unknowing partners in CA?

Of course. I can't help it that Jerry Brown is a ****ing idiot. It's illegal in 37 states.

Move there. Guarantee it'll be cheaper, too.

 

[Relsdm]

I’m old enough to remember all the clamoring for liability shields for employers. Apparently employers do face exposure for failing to create COVID-safe(r) work environments, so why should the agency responsible for defining such things not be an appropriate referee here?

Simply because they were never given that authority as the SC verified in their ruling.

 

[Greenbeard]

Simply because they were never given that authority as the SC verified in their ruling.

If COVID wasn't a workplace safety issue, there wouldn't be any need to offer employers liability protection for exposing employees to COVID-unsafe work environments.

 

[Cope]

If COVID wasn't a workplace safety issue, there wouldn't be any need to offer employers liability protection for exposing employees to COVID-unsafe work environments.

As the USSC does routinely, they tend to send messages that the end around attempts at skirting the crafting and enactment of laws that would perform the same function are frivolous.

Frivolous lawsuits get dismissed.

Bottom line: Want a mask mandate, pass a law.

 

[Relsdm]

If COVID wasn't a workplace safety issue, there wouldn't be any need to offer employers liability protection for exposing employees to COVID-unsafe work environments.

Businesses are open to liability issues as soon as they open their doors.
No matter how you want to spin it. Covid is not a work place specific safety issue. OSHA does not govern gun violence in the workplace but businesses can be liable for that as well. OSHA is not responsible for harassment issues at work but business can be liable for that. Just because something can occur at a business does not mean that OSHA has jurisdiction over it.

 

[fbi10]

?

Him saying it was a "republic" does not, in any sense of the word, invalidate the fact that the United States is a democracy. Do you know what the words Republic and Democracy mean?

That’s incorrect. The United States isn’t a democracy. That is absolutely wrong and James Madison and the founding fathers would retort that claim…

 

[Greenbeard]

No matter how you want to spin it. Covid is not a work place specific safety issue. OSHA does not govern gun violence in the workplace but businesses can be liable for that as well. OSHA is not responsible for harassment issues at work but business can be liable for that. Just because something can occur at a business does not mean that OSHA has jurisdiction over it.

That doesn't appear to be unambiguously true. As far as I can tell, since OSHA has deliberately chosen to take a lighter touch on workplace violence, including with respect to firearms, and has refrained from developing standards in that area, the limits of its authority and responsibilities on your examples remain to be tested.

Workplace Violence: What Does OSHA Require of Employers?

The U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration defines workplace violence as “any act or threat of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site.” BLS statistics show that workplace violence is currently the third-leading cause of workplace deaths in the U.S.

At present, OSHA has no specific standards pertaining to workplace violence, although the agency has developed written procedures for its field inspection personnel to follow when conducting OSHA inspections and citing employers for occupational exposure to violence.

OSHA’s authority to cite an employer in the context of a workplace violence incident is derived from the OSH Act’s “general duty” clause, which requires employers to provide employees with a place of employment that is “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm." Courts have interpreted OSHA's general duty clause to impose upon an employer a legal obligation to provide a workplace free of conditions that either the employer or industry recognizes as hazardous and that cause, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees when there is a feasible method to abate the hazard. An employer that has experienced or becomes aware of actual or threatened workplace violence would be on notice of the risk of workplace violence.

 

[Relsdm]

That doesn't appear to be unambiguously true. As far as I can tell, since OSHA has deliberately chosen to take a lighter touch on workplace violence, including with respect to firearms, and has refrained from developing standards in that area, the limits of its authority and responsibilities on your examples remain to be tested.

Workplace Violence: What Does OSHA Require of Employers?

Basically, you just agreed that everything I posted is correct. Good job.

 

[Greenbeard]

Basically, you just agreed that everything I posted is correct. Good job.

"Basically"? I suppose that's meant to indicate you comprehended the plain meaning of my words but are simply pretending not to.

 

[Relsdm]

"Basically"? I suppose that's meant to indicate you comprehended the plain meaning of my words but are simply pretending not to.

I used the word basically because you did not dispute anything that I said.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That’s incorrect. The United States isn’t a democracy.

Yes it is. Do you know what "democracy" means?

 

[fbi10]

Yes it is. Do you know what "democracy" means?

Yea do you? Have you read anything by the founding fathers ?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yea do you?

Yes I do. I know so because I'm familiar with the origin of both the word "democracy" and "republic", and thus I know that dēmokratiā and Res publica are not, in fact, contradictory, but in fact highly complimentary.

And I also know the United States is both by virtue of how its system of government functions.

 

[fbi10]

Yes I do. I know so because I'm familiar with the origin of both the word "democracy" and "republic", and thus I know that dēmokratiā and Res publica are not, in fact, contradictory, but in fact highly complimentary.

And I also know the United States is both by virtue of how its system of government functions.

They can be complimentary, yes, but in function/practice and how they work, it’s not the same. You can have functions of democracy in a republic but that doesn’t mean they are same or interchangeable. At that point, you have to define your terms.

Hence why the founding fathers weren’t fans of democracy.

Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787) - Bill of Rights Institute

Written by James Madison, this essay defended the form of republican government proposed by the Constitution

billofrightsinstitute.org

 

[Jredbaron96]

They can be complimentary, yes, but in function/practice and how they work, it’s not the same.

Says who? History does not support your claim.

You can have functions of democracy in a republic but that doesn’t mean they are same or interchangeable. At that point, you have to define your terms.

As I already have. And so operating on the exact meaning of those words, I can correctly point out that the United States is both a democracy and a republic. Specifically a representative democracy and a constitutional republic.

Hence why the founding fathers weren’t fans of democracy.

The definition of "democracy" utilized by Madison has no bearing on the actual meaning of the term and its function.

 

[Grasshopper121212]

I better not ever catch YOU trying to vote either.
Voting is the exercise of democracy but seeing as how you don't believe we're a democracy, you have no business voting.

Perhaps again you should take my advice and take a civics course. Within the term "Constitutional Republic" is democratic voting. So, what is it about this Democrat Party push to allow illegal aliens the right to vote and then your comment? Really? I better not ever catch you trying to vote either too. But, it's your right as a citizen, if you are a legal citizen.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Perhaps again you should take my advice and take a civics course. Within the term "Constitutional Republic" is democratic voting.

Then you understand why it's a mistake to claim this country isn't a democracy.
Representative democracy is democracy, and it's still democracy even when functioning within the framework of a constitutional republic because the two aren't mutually exclusive or incompatible.
Democracy IS voting...voting is the practice of democracy, and nobody in 2500 years has ever suggested pure or direct democracy, and that suggestion reeks of a disinfo agenda.

So, what is it about this Democrat Party push to allow illegal aliens the right to vote and then your comment?

Evidence of such a thing is essential when one makes a claim like that.
Do you have any?
(School board elections don't count as evidence, seeing as how allowing people to vote in local school board elections does not equal votes for state and federal office.)
You must provide evidence that illegals are actively electing congressmen, senators and presidents.

Really? I better not ever catch you trying to vote either too. But, it's your right as a citizen, if you are a legal citizen.

And now you're questioning my citizenship, which is the kind of argument one expects from a person lacking intellectual and emotional maturity.
Claims without evidence usually goes hand in hand with such behavior.

So, I'll wait to see what evidence you have, because from here it looks like your entire participation in this thread boils down to an abiding hatred of Democrats and nothing else.

 

[HangLow]

I hope it does, truly, and takes the USS GQP right along with it, to the briny deep.
With its moronic Captain, bone spurs donnie trump, still lashed securely to its wheel.


I could TOTALLY support THAT!!!!

​