The supreme court is a joke with no credibility

[Jredbaron96]

Because that is what they did. You have not presented any example where OSHA has enforced mandates of this kind.

OSHA regulates work place hazards all the time. Your claims that COVID doesn't qualify as such are blatantly untrue as demonstrated by the numerous industries completely unrelated to health care and research that have none the less been devastated by COVID.

Your Hepatitis/HIV mandate in healthcare occupational spaces is not the same. Stop pretending that it is.

Viral pathogens are indisputably a concern of OSHA. You claiming otherwise means **** all. The Court didn't even disagree with that, it instead argued that COVID had become a universal risk that was not limited to the workplace.

That has a similar connotation to the CMS ruling which the court allowed the case to proceed since it was not obvious that the administration would lose their case due to some precedence.

The precedent the Majority Opinion has now established with this ruling is that OSHA shouldn't regulate dangers if they can happen outside the workplace. That is obviously a stupid sentiment but for some reason you don't think that's a big deal despite it being complete bonkers.

 

[P_T]

Its main goal is to ensure that employers provide employees with an environment free from recognized hazards, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions.

An example is Walmart closing for several days to sanitize the place. It means using specific solutions of Bleach and water to clean up bodily spills, it means wearing fall protection with approved attach points, it means training on the job, it means jabs for HepB if you are a first responder in place of work. etc. It means hard hats, ear protection, Safety shoes Safety glasses with side Shields, even fire retardant clothes or visibility reflecting vests.

 

[American]

He uses my exact citation in post #84 as if it supports his position, after declaring that my position as to "occupational hazard" requirement and explanation was not stated by SCOTUS.

The bloody citation he uses CLEARLY STATES that the Majority of SCOTUS (citing the Act that created OSHA) held in the FIRST Case that Covid-19 was NOT an "occupational hazard," with the exception in their ruling in the SECOND case that Healthcare facilities COULD be regulated by OSHA because dealing with illness IS THEIR OCCUPATION! Hence OSHA can regulate that occupational hazard prevention.

His arrogance must be due to confirmation bias...i.e. only willing to see what he wishes as opposed to what is really there.

His arrogance led him to post a lengthy diatribe which did not seem to disprove your post.

 

[GummyVitamins]

OSHA regulates work place hazards all the time. Your claims that COVID doesn't qualify as such are blatantly untrue as demonstrated by the numerous industries completely unrelated to health care and research that have none the less been devastated by COVID.

What is with all the obfuscation? OSHA does not issue pervasive public health mandates and has never done this before. There is no authority for this to happen.

Viral pathogens are indisputably a concern of OSHA. You claiming otherwise means **** all. The Court didn't even disagree with that, it instead argued that COVID had become a universal risk that was not limited to the workplace.

"Concern" does not mean they have legal authority to impose invasive mandates on virtually all American workers. "Concern" is an emotional term and I don't care to discuss emotional arguments.

The precedent the Majority Opinion has now established with this ruling is that OSHA shouldn't regulate dangers if they can happen outside the workplace. That is obviously a stupid sentiment but for some reason you don't think that's a big deal despite it being complete bonkers.

The majority opinion is that there is no language in the statutory authority that can allow a mandate for Americans to inject themselves with a vaccine or undergo weekly medical tests at their own expense. OSHA regulates occupational hazards. This has always been targeted regulations for specific occupational hazards. This mandate came from the executive as a broad brush public health mandate. That is not within OSHA's scope of regulatory authority. In order for the federal government to override state laws there must be clear language to authorize this. But, there isn't as your absurd hepatitis/hiv argument shows. Additionally, Picking out single phrase from thousands of pages of regulations to interpret OSHA's authority to essentially be limitless is equally absurd. You're asking for the federal government to have the authority to impose invasive mandates for a risk that is not inherently occupation based. And you're asking for that authority based on zero precedent or clear guidance from Congress.

 

[Jredbaron96]

What is with all the obfuscation? OSHA does not issue pervasive public health mandates and has never done this before. There is no authority for this to happen.

The only claim that this is a "public health mandate" was made by SCOTUS and argued that it crossed some kind of threshold by virtue of impacting some 84 million Americans.

So I ask you; if this mandate had only impacted 84,000 people, would the Majority still have ruled the way they did.

"Concern" does not mean they have legal authority to impose invasive mandates on virtually all American workers.

"Invasive" is just a buzzword you're throwing out to make a vaccine against a disease that has killed a million Americans seem scary. "Invasive" is an emotional term and I don't care to discuss emotional arguments.

The majority opinion is that there is no language in the statutory authority that can allow a mandate for Americans to inject themselves with a vaccine or undergo weekly medical tests at their own expense. OSHA regulates occupational hazards. This has always been targeted regulations for specific occupational hazards.

Fires, poisons, and falling from great heights are not threats or dangers unique to the workplace but OSHA still mandates them.

This mandate came from the executive as a broad brush public health mandate. That is not within OSHA's scope of regulatory authority.

Who does this affect that doesn't already fall under OSHA's regulatory authority?

In order for the federal government to override state laws there must be clear language to authorize this.

The Majority Opinion makes no mention of States laws being violated as justification of their ruling.

You're asking for the federal government to have the authority to impose invasive mandates for a risk that is not inherently occupation based.

What occupation has thus far demonstrated its immunity to COVID and its effects?

And you're asking for that authority based on zero precedent or clear guidance from Congress.

Again, this is nonsensical. Congress expressly gave OSHA billions in funding to fight COVID.

 

[Jredbaron96]

His arrogance led him to post a lengthy diatribe which did not seem to disprove your post.

Like Captain Adverse, you seem to share a fear of actually quoting someone but still feeling the need to "contribute" to the discussion by saying nothing of value.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The only claim that this is a "public health mandate" was made by SCOTUS and argued that it crossed some kind of threshold by virtue of impacting some 84 million Americans.

So I ask you; if this mandate had only impacted 84,000 people, would the Majority still have ruled the way they did.

As usual, your argument isn't true. The lower courts had the same argument. To your question Re: 84,000 people.. the court did allow a case to proceed where the regulation was more tailored to occupational risk. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly yet seems to be falling on deaf ears.

"Invasive" is just a buzzword you're throwing out to make a vaccine against a disease that has killed a million Americans seem scary. "Invasive" is an emotional term and I don't care to discuss emotional arguments.

There is no other way to describe the government issuing a mandate with the goal of injecting you with a drug, potentially against your will, in order to maintain employment during a pandemic... especially when the government has blocked any recourse from negative impacts of the drug. This is an invasive and authoritarian act. These facts are part of the reasoning behind the court's decision.

Fires, poisons, and falling from great heights are not threats or dangers unique to the workplace but OSHA still mandates them.

OSHA has clearly defined regulations for certain hazards that were approved through the outlined process that included notice, comment, public hearings, etc. Conflating the two scenarios is dishonest.

The Majority Opinion makes no mention of States laws being violated as justification of their ruling.

This also isn't true and it shows that you have not read the opinion of the court because this was stated in the third sentence of the ruling and mentioned repeatedly throughout.

Again, this is nonsensical. Congress expressly gave OSHA billions in funding to fight COVID.

More dishonesty. A bipartisan group of Senators have already approved legislation to end the vaccine mandate. That was never the intent of any OSHA funding. Additionally, the measure has 212 cosponsors in the House, but Pelosi is preventing it from being voted on. There is bipartisan support to end this authoritarian overreach in Congress.

 

[Jredbaron96]

As usual, your argument isn't true. The lower courts had the same argument. To your question Re: 84,000 people.. the court did allow a case to proceed where the regulation was more tailored to occupational risk. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

It's been pointed out to you repeatedly that COVID had thoroughly damaged numerous different occupations across numerous industries, yet you still seem to pretend that it doesn't constitute an occupational risk to those businesses.

There is no other way to describe the government issuing a mandate with the goal of injecting you with a drug, potentially against your will, in order to maintain employment during a pandemic.

You mean in order to try to ensure some level of workplace safety. This obsession with trying to paint this as only undertaken as part of an authoritarian power grab is ridiculous.

OSHA has clearly defined regulations for certain hazards that were approved through the outlined process that included notice, comment, public hearings, etc. Conflating the two scenarios is dishonest.

This is nothing but a side step to avoid an obvious gap in the logic of what safety concerns OSHA regulates.

This also isn't true and it shows that you have not read the opinion of the court because this was stated in the third sentence of the ruling and mentioned throughout.

Uh, what?

The third sentence of the justification is "The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense."

More dishonesty.

I don't know why you think lying now is the right way to go.

 

[P_T]

Hopefully in these next handful of years we provide the leadership to remove archaic foot in the grave seat holders, put in moderate Demo and Repubs, bury the obsolete belief that hate, lies and unprovable accusations will ever again pervade our great country with total rhetoric of nothing but lies and Hate. Be it from politicians or Citizens. May we find legal ways to welcome into our great nation grateful people who need to immigrate and refuse those who use politics to better their own greeds ! May we find ways to create fair districts for voting for our Representatives instead of boundry search Majority Counties. The American DEmocracy experience is built on a 50 / 50 % arguement of virtue, value, honesty and rule of fair law built on the past going forward !

 

[P_T]

Think a Federal court today removes some of Presidential Executive powers concerning Virus Mandates. Maybe, Maybe not so good.

Maybe the main problem we got is the instant Communications thru Social Media of total B.S.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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.

Just curious. Can you identify a single time that Kagan or Sotomayor rendered an opinion that was not in lock-step with the Democratic party on a high profile issue?

As for the two decisions, you do realize that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 individual justices, and that only one (maybe 2) of them voted differently between these two cases, right? What's even more bizarre is that the author of the article you cited, who graduated from a great law school and clerked at the 6th Circuit, doesn't even seem to understand this.

And as for the article, it's pretty ironic for an obviously left-wing writer to take issue with the court "fabricating legal doctrines." That's awfully precious right there.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Just curious. Can you identify a single time that Kagan or Sotomayor rendered an opinion that was not in lock-step with the Democratic party on a high profile issue?

As for the two decisions, you do realize that the Supreme Court is made up of 9 individual justices, and that only one (maybe 2) of them voted differently between these two cases, right? What's even more bizarre is that the author of the article you cited, who graduated from a great law school and clerked at the 6th Circuit, doesn't even seem to understand this.

And as for the article, it's pretty ironic for an obviously left-wing writer to take issue with the court "fabricating legal doctrines." That's awfully precious right there.

I always find it interesting when people who cite Vox also mock people who read Fox News. At least Vox is pretty up front that they believe their readers are too stupid to think for themselves and need someone to explain the liberal narrative to them rather than have them infer it.