• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The supreme court is a joke with no credibility

Gateman_Wen said:
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.

www.vox.com

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 www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.
Click to expand...
If true then the blame lies on the american people. They vote for the people who nominated and approve, or disapprove the judges
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...
Evidently you haven't read the statute in question, or you'd be aware that the Court's decision was ideologically, not legally, -based. The statute clearly gives OSHA that broad authority in the workplace, which is the only place the rule applied, and its authority is not limited to "particular at-risk industries", and never has been.

There is an entire section of its rules that are, in fact, entitled "General Industry" that have been in place for 50 years. Things like chairs, environmental hazards, exits, tools, etc., have general applicability no matter your workplace. This rule is no different. The particular hazards, as specifically addressed in the rules, are conditions of the workplace, which is why requirements are not applicable to some working environments - like telework, outdoor work, and locations where workers do not gather or meet with customers.
 
Last edited:
The Court gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act and then allowed dark corporate money to flow into our elections.

Next to go will be the right to an abortion even though Kavanaugh and Barrett both stated in their confirmation hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
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.

www.vox.com

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 www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.
Click to expand...
If you read the Constitution, it says that Congress has the power to makes laws. The Democrats figure out how to work around the Constitution, by creating Agencies that can do their dirty work. These Agencies can make laws without formal Congressional vote, so the two faced representatives, can avoid having to vote on record, for certain unpopular laws that can forward their agenda. The Democrats have created this tradition, and gotten away with it, due to many years of controlling the Supreme Court. But a shift was created by Trump, with the Constitution now being more enforced. The cheaters are upset that there is now Constitutional pushback to what they assumed was the new way.

Pelosi can put together a set of laws for a vaccine mandate laws and have a vote, with all the Democrats on record just before the midterms. But they know this will be unpopular, so they would prefer maintain a buffer. They prefer an Agency, under their thumb, can do the dirty work, so they can say one thing, while getting a different outcome; better for political optics and outcomes.

My prediction is these various busy body agencies may have their wings clipped in the future. The making of laws will be returned to Congress. Imagine if Congress had to vote on every law in the 70,000 pages of the IRS manual? The EPA is just as bloated to name another. The IRS and EPA manuals of rules would become smaller, due to the time constraints of Congressmen. They will also need to vote on other within all the other overreach agencies. This could become retroactive. This will shrink the government. Now we have unconstitutional means to self expand bureaucracy, through it own self driven laws, faster that this could happen by the Constitution. The Constitution created a way to assure that the number of laws stayed small so people were as free as possible and government smaller. The self driven bloat is Unconstitutional.

The cheaters are upset by the shift, but this is only the beginning of the end of cheating. Maybe someone from the left can show us where the Constitution says Agencies get to write laws without any Congressional vote. This new Agency tradition was not dealt with properly by past Supreme Courts, but was given a rubber stamp. No more rubber stamp unless you can change the Constitution with an Amendment.
 
tshade said:
If true then the blame lies on the american people. They vote for the people who nominated and approve, or disapprove the judges
Click to expand...
Mostly, except in the cases of Gorsuch and Barrett, in which case they voted against them.
 
NWRatCon said:
Finally a concession we can agree on.

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

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

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.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is precisely what I said: if you were ‘fully vaccinated’ then you did not have to wear a mask or be tested weekly. Not being required to be masked or tested is, in fact, an exemption from those requirements.
 
NWRatCon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, employees who do not meet the requirements are not subtracted from the employer’s total number of employees. An employer with 100 employees, 80 of which do not have to meet the requirements, still meant that employer must comply for the other 20 employees.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
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).
Click to expand...
But the vaccinated do not end up in our ICU's and fill them to capacity over and over. This nonsense is killing others who really need care. Why should we tolerate that?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is precisely what I said: if you were ‘fully vaccinated’ then you did not have to wear a mask or be tested weekly. Not being required to be masked or tested is, in fact, an exemption from those requirements.
Click to expand...
<sigh> That's not what the rule said.

1910.501(d)
Employer policy on vaccination.
1910.501(d)(1)
The employer must establish, implement, and enforce a written mandatory vaccination policy.
1910.501(d)(2)
The employer is exempted from the requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section only if the employer establishes, implements, and enforces a written policy allowing any employee not subject to a mandatory vaccination policy to choose either to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or provide proof of regular testing for COVID-19 in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section and wear a face covering in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.

The employer is exempted, not the employees. It allows the employer flexibility in how they implement the rule. The point is to not spread the virus. It does not require perfection. An employer can require either, or both (and many, many, many do).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Thank you for the clarification. Unfortunately, employees who do not meet the requirements are not subtracted from the employer’s total number of employees. An employer with 100 employees, 80 of which do not have to meet the requirements, still meant that employer must comply for the other 20 employees.
Click to expand...
So? You argue as if that makes any difference. It doesn't. OSHA rules always have, and only have, applied to conditions of the workplace. The 200 employee requirement is a practical application standard, not a litmus test of rationality. In general, OSHA rules apply to all employers, regardless of size. As a regulatory matter, some employers are too small to warrant the expense of inspection.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
So? You argue as if that makes any difference. It doesn't. OSHA rules always have, and only have, applied to conditions of the workplace. The 200 employee requirement is a jurisdictional/practical application standard, not a litmus test of rationality.
Click to expand...
I wanted to also state something publicly - my friends ttwtt and cpwill don't occupy my ignore list because they bring rational, cited, and principled points to the discussion. Obviously we often disagree, but I, and they, are persuadable, which is, I think, the object of having a "discussion board". My responses can be salty, I admit, but they are intended to be with respect. My apologies if they ever appear not so.
 
noonereal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Couldn't just be the proper interpretation of the law, huh? Of course not, because in this case the "law" didn't bend to meet the desires of the socialist/marxist/democrats.
 
iguanaman said:
But the vaccinated do not end up in our ICU's and fill them to capacity over and over. This nonsense is killing others who really need care. Why should we tolerate that?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with workplace safety.
 
NWRatCon said:
So? You argue as if that makes any difference. It doesn't. OSHA rules always have, and only have, applied to conditions of the workplace. The 200 employee requirement is a practical application standard, not a litmus test of rationality. In general, OSHA rules apply to all employers, regardless of size. As a regulatory matter, some employers are too small to warrant the expense of inspection.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so why was this “workplace safety” regulation so different?
 
NWRatCon said:
I wanted to also state something publicly - my friends ttwtt and cpwill don't occupy my ignore list because they bring rational, cited, and principled points to the discussion. Obviously we often disagree, but I, and they, are persuadable, which is, I think, the object of having a "discussion board". My responses can be salty, I admit, but they are intended to be with respect. My apologies if they ever appear not so.
Click to expand...
I think most people want the court to make a reasonable decision based on the law as it is written and in how it compares to the Constitution. What most don't want is Judges ruling based on how they "wish" it would be or how they "feel" it ought to be in order to meet their ideological bent. Perfect example, Roe V Wade. Using the 14th amendment, bypassing the 10th in order to allow the murder of babies in the womb for convenience is about as big a stretch as there is. Doesn't take but a cursory look into the decisions on Roe to see the flaws.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly, so why was this “workplace safety” regulation so different?
Click to expand...
Frankly, asked and answered: "As a regulatory matter, some employers are too small to warrant the expense of inspection." I don't think that should have been incorporated in the rule, but I didn't draft them. (Ironically, the only current employment I have is in rule drafting.) In what way was it "so different"?

A question: Do you concede that the OSHA rule only applied to workplaces? I'm not setting a trap, I'm making a point.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
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 court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.
Click to expand...
Totally. The results are devastating.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has denied Medicaid coverage to millions of poor people, neutered the Voting Rights Act, authorized new waves of voter suppression, unleashed the power of money for entrenched interests and would-be oligarchs, and opened the door to extreme partisan gerrymandering.
 
NWRatCon said:
Frankly, asked and answered: "As a regulatory matter, some employers are too small to warrant the expense of inspection." I don't think that should have been incorporated in the rule, but I didn't draft them. In what way was it "so different"?

A question: Do you concede that the OSHA rule only applied to workplaces? I'm not setting a trap, I'm making a point.
Click to expand...

Yes, which begs the question of why the total number of employees had to be raised to 100 (instead of the typical 10) to warrant reporting to OSHA.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's odd, the way I read Biden v. Missouri is the court said the federal government could require the vaccine at any facility that accepted federal dollars for health care (primarily medicare and medicaid). This would NOT apply to a facility that does not accept these forms of payment.

 
BirdinHand said:
Why hasn’t the DNC controlled House drafted vaccine legislation?

Codify requirements into a law?

Why the end around of EOs?
Click to expand...

The case the supreme court heard is not an EO.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
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.

www.vox.com

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 www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.
Click to expand...
Following the Constitution comprises "partisanship" only to LW Dembots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom