The supreme court is a joke with no credibility

[Gateman_Wen]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

 

[noonereal]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Exactly!

I posted the exact same thing a few days ago.

They start with how they want to rule than go about to justify it as best they can.

 

[gbg3]

Some of the incorrect things spouted during the recent hearings on vaccine mandates, certainly didn't help the credibility of some of them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

The reverse is obviously true as well - there are no minors present in the workforce, yet Sotomayor tried to use erroneous serious infection related hospitalization statistics among minors to justify the testing and masking of only workers (for ‘large employers’) who are not ‘fully vaccinated’. The OP link, of course, ignored that moronic argument or the fact that the ‘fully vaccinated’ can (and do) also spread COVID-19 (inside or outside of the workplace).

 

[Jredbaron96]

The past few years have certainly cemented the Robert's Court as one of nonsensical rulings and deliberate ignorance.

 

[Overitall]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

If the Democrats had their way (packing the SC) who do you think they would pack it with? Certainly not with impartial/neutral justices. That would be too risky for them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly!

I posted the exact same thing a few days ago.

They start with how they want to rule than go about to justify it as best they can.

That (bolded above) is precisely what Sotomayor did, yet the OP link chose to ignore that fact.

 

[Helix]

In the past couple decades, with the exception of at least one justice whose votes were predictable regardless of the arguments, you could generally count on the court to do the right thing, with a few glaring exceptions. I don't feel that way now. Striking down the mandate was a bullshit decision. Leaving it in place for health care workers shows that they know the decision was bullshit. I'm concerned about what else this court will do in the future.

 

[Bodecea]

The past few years have certainly cemented the Robert's Court as one of nonsensical rulings and deliberate ignorance.

Anyone surprised considering trump's three picks?

 

[ttwtt78640]

In the past couple decades, with the exception of at least one justice whose votes were predictable regardless of the arguments, you could generally count on the court to do the right thing, with a few glaring exceptions. I don't feel that way now. Striking down the mandate was a bullshit decision. Leaving it in place for health care workers shows that they know the decision was bullshit. I'm concerned about what else this court will do in the future.

Hmm… is that based on a truck driver or lawn maintenance worker (who happens to work for a large employer) being much the same as a health care worker?

 

[Helix]

Hmm… is that based on a truck driver or lawn maintenance worker (who happens to work for a large employer) being much the same as a health care worker?

You're intelligent and already understand perfectly well. Don't pretend that you need me to explain.

 

[NWRatCon]

The reverse is obviously true as well - there are no minors present in the workforce, yet Sotomayor tried to use erroneous serious infection related hospitalization statistics among minors to justify the testing and masking of only workers (for ‘large employers’) who are not ‘fully vaccinated’. The OP link, of course, ignored that moronic argument or the fact that the ‘fully vaccinated’ can (and do) also spread COVID-19 (inside or outside of the workplace).

That (bolded above) is precisely what Sotomayor did, yet the OP link chose to ignore that fact.

Your argument is actually bullshit. What she was explicitly pointing out is that the disease is dangerous. She was not talking about children in the workplace. Just cut the crap, my friend.

 

[P_T]

The Supreme Court follows former laws to create Rulings within the framework of the Constitution/Amendments. It’s verdicts are final until the the next one/next time. If all the judges were liberal our lives might/would be mostly socialism based. If all Conservative maybe / mostly minorities still couldn’t vote/go to bathrooms or private schools, public schools would be worse & no family planing or safe cars, clean water or sewers.
So; we reap who we appoint. It’s not one judge it’s the majority that doom us. Most likely Asians will fill our schools and market places with us a minority then.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You're intelligent and already understand perfectly well. Don't pretend that you need me to explain.

Nice dodge.

 

[NWRatCon]

Hmm… is that based on a truck driver or lawn maintenance worker (who happens to work for a large employer) being much the same as a health care worker?

Again, this is a straw man argument. Those individuals were explicitly not affected by the rule or the decision.

Why is it that a certain segment of our posting population can't stick to the facts at hand but have to make up ones that are inapplicable? Could it be because their arguments have no merit?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your argument is actually bullshit. What she was explicitly pointing out is that the disease is dangerous. She was not talking about children in the workplace. Just cut the crap, my friend.

This disease has been dangerous for over two years. The question before the court was specifically about a workplace hazard. BTW, she overstated that hazard by about 30X what the CDC (the science?) says it is. It is also well known that ‘fully vaccinated’ people can (and do) spread the virus - thus exempting them from an “emergency” masking and testing made no sense at all.

 

[Captain Adverse]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

IMO the SCOTUS reasoning is valid.

The difference is that healthcare workers, as a direct result of their jobs, are placed in a position where they are highly likely to encounter various forms of disease and spread same. It is an "occupational hazard" that OSHA may validly regulate.

On the other hand, while a common worker MIGHT come into contact with a disease, the risk is much less obvious as their jobs really have nothing to do with providing healthcare which would regularly expose them to such risks. Moreover, if this kind of non-healthcare occupation related ruling were allowed, then there would be no rationale for not extending the rules to cover ALL businesses, regardless of numbers of employees, as advocates of "vaccine mandates" have argued.

Thus I can see why allowances for such OSHA rules could apply to occupations in healthcare with a high likelihood of risk to workers and customers, but not to average workplaces.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Again, this is a straw man argument. Those individuals were explicitly not affected by the rule or the decision.

Why is it that a certain segment of our posting population can't stick to the facts at hand but have to make up ones that are inapplicable? Could it be because their arguments have no merit?

That is nonsense, there were no exceptions for any employees of ‘large’ employers based on their job descriptions.

 

[Napoleon]

Your argument is actually bullshit. What she was explicitly pointing out is that the disease is dangerous.

It’s still a specious argument. All diseases are dangerous, this one has a low hospitalization and mortality rate, and it doesn’t explain why SCOTUS should overturn 128 years of precedent that this power belongs uniquely to the States. Nor does Sotomayor’s line of reasoning explain the inconsistency in why vaccination for this disease should be a federalized workplace rule while vaccination against other dangerous diseases is not.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Many conservative things don't normally last long term in our country (women/blacks not voting, denying gay rights, interracial marriage, etc).

Or kids and grandkids will have to fix the messes of this SC like people after slavery had to fix the messes of those SCs.

 

[NWRatCon]

That is nonsense, there were no exceptions for any employees of ‘large’ employers based on their job descriptions.

My friend, it is really, really important to actually READ the requirements before you go making erroneous statements which are, on their face, embarrassing:
1910.501(b)(3)
The requirements of this section do not apply to the employees of covered employers:
1910.501(b)(3)(i)
Who do not report to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present;
1910.501(b)(3)(ii)
While working from home; or
1910.501(b)(3)(iii)
Who work exclusively outdoors.

 

[NWRatCon]

This disease has been dangerous for over two years.

Finally a concession we can agree on.

The question before the court was specifically about a workplace hazard.

Yes, it was. That is the part that the majority ignored.

BTW, she overstated that hazard by about 30X what the CDC (the science?) says it is.

She misstated it, I grant. She was off by about 15%

It is also well known that ‘fully vaccinated’ people can (and do) spread the virus - thus exempting them from an “emergency” masking and testing made no sense at all.

They were not exempted. You really didn't follow this all that well, did you? "fully vaccinated" employees had modified requirements, not exemptions. Also, it was either-or, not a mandate. Another inaccurate assertion frequently put forth.

 

[Queen Margo]

Anyone surprised considering trump's three picks?

That was some good things he got accomplished in his term!

 

[cpwill]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

Evidently VOX can't read the decisions, or they would be aware of the distinctions the court is applying between wide-ranging mandates that are meant to be de facto mandates for Americans, and mandates that are tailored to particular at-risk industries.

Meanwhile, while Approval of SCOTUS is indeed lower than it has been:




It is still higher than approval for Congress. The Judiciary writ large is in a similar boat as well:

The September survey also reveals a steep decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who express "a great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government, from 67% in 2020 to 54% today. The current reading is only the second sub-60% trust score for the judicial branch in Gallup's trend, along with a 53% reading from 2015.​

Personally, I think the Institutionalists on the court, and Demagogues in the partisan leadership of both parties are to blame.

 

[NWRatCon]

Evidently VOX can't read the decisions, or they would be aware of the distinctions the court is applying between wide-ranging mandates that are meant to be de facto mandates for Americans, and mandates that are tailored to particular at-risk industries.

Meanwhile, while Approval of SCOTUS is indeed lower than it has been:
....
Personally, I think the Institutionalists on the court, and Demagogues in the partisan leadership of both parties are to blame.

I think you meant the anti-institutionalists and demagogues in the courts.