• 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

:) I'm aware of OSHA's argument. I'm aware also that it failed to hold up under scrutiny :)
It wasn't given any scrutiny. It was dismissed out of hand. Again, why the SCOTUS majority is in such disrepute.

I'll ask, seriously, how you make a distinction that isn't there? If the danger to patients is patent regarding healthcare, how is it not in regards to coworkers and customers?

Does the per curiam opinion follow the law, as written? No it does not. Does it make a distinction not in the law? Yes, it does. It is purely ideological, not rational, and not based upon the law or Constitution. That's called "judicial activism".
 
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.
Basically turning America into an oligarchical paradise for racists.
 
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.
Can small businesses not wear hard hats on job sites then?
 
Biden instructed OSHA to implement a vaccination requirement for any employer over 100.

Not quite. There was no vaccine requirement.

Employers were required to implement vaccine tracking OR the wearing of masks while engage in work. The OSHA regulation didn't require anyone to get a vaccination, they could choose to wear masks while at work and there were exceptions for outside workers.

(Note this did not preclude the employer choosing to require vaccination, but that would not have been per the OSHA requirement.)

WW
 
Can small businesses not wear hard hats on job sites then?
Assiduously not making a point, I see. You realize, I think, that you've just proven the validity of the rule. Or, <sigh>, no you don't.
 
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.
Thomas should be removed for lying on his disclosure forms for years, and Kavanaugh should be subject to an actual FBI investigation into his background to see if he lied at his confirmation hearing. He showed an unbelievable lack of judicial decorum in those hearings also, if it hadn't become a hopelessly partisan exercise he would never have been confirmed.
 
Assiduously not making a point, I see. You realize, I think, that you've just proven the validity of the rule. Or, <sigh>, no you don't.
I think you're confused. Do job hazards not exist for businesses with less than 100 employees? Why are these businesses capable of following every other OSHA mandate except for this one?
 
You mention distinctions but you fail to describe them. I'd like to hear them.

The CMS mandate is a condition that is attached to the receipt of federal funds by a particular workforce in a field that is uniquely at risk. The federal government's ability to attach conditions to the receipt of it's own money is quite broad, and well-protected within the law.

The workforce mandate, in contrast, is not tied to the receipt of federal funds, but is instead intended to function as a backdoor national mandate, which the Federal government lacks even a pretense of authority to do. Neither Congress nor OSHA has ever enacted such a mandate, and, while the court did not rule on the merits of the rule itself, it's stay of the order is the Court's judgment that such an investigation will likely demonstrate that Congress has, at least, not granted OSHA the authority to do so.

A smarter source than I, if you are interested in more. :)
 
You might have a point if that was actually mentioned in the decisions.

It wasn't.

Really? :rolleyes:

Did you bother to check that out yourself, or did you just take some reporter's word for it?

Here is the decision:


Read it carefully.

...The dissent protests that we are imposing “a limit found no place in the governing statute.” Post, at 7 (joint opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.). Not so. It is the text of the agency’s Organic Act that repeatedly makes clear that OSHA is charged with regulating “occupational” hazards and the safety and health of “employees.” See, e.g., 29 U. S. C. §§652(8), 654(a)(2), 655(b)–(c)...

...Although COVID– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases.

IMO you need to stop arguing from confirmation bias, and fact check before you make declarative statements that are factually incorrect.
 
Last edited:
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.
You're arguing, I guess, that OSHA is unconstitutional, but the court didn't rule that. If the OSH Act is constitutional, then that act gives them the power to regulate the work place, in all 50 states, and it has done so for about 50 years.

And the point of the OP is the SC said that in some cases, using your argument, it's fine to "overturn 128 years of precedent," but not in other cases.

Also, how does the law define "low hospitalization and mortality rate?" No other communicable disease has killed what's likely a million people so far in any of our lifetimes, so what's the cutoff? Our hospitals are about 95% full right now, and getting worse daily. Do the hospitals have to be overrun and the system collapse before the feds can act, or is acting BEFORE there's actually a crisis in fact the point?
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.
Other than "this disease" is killing about 10X more per year than the next worst communicable disease, I can't think of a good reason..... Why would the feds look at something that kills 10 persons per year different than a workplace factor that kills 10,000? It's a ****ing mystery. 🥴
 
What else would you expect from a trump court?

How far that man took America down!
 
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.
It's call the law, not democrat hopes and feelings.
 
It wasn't given any scrutiny. It was dismissed out of hand. Again, why the SCOTUS majority is in such disrepute.

I'll ask, seriously, how you make a distinction that isn't there? If the danger to patients is patent regarding healthcare, how is it not in regards to coworkers and customers?

Does the per curiam opinion follow the law, as written? No it does not. Does it make a distinction not in the law? Yes, it does. It is purely ideological, not rational, and not based upon the law or Constitution. That's called "judicial activism".
You are aware that both sides had to present their case to the Court?
 
And don't forget that by the republican's own standards either ConeyBarret or Goresuch is illegitimate.
 
The CMS mandate is a condition that is attached to the receipt of federal funds by a particular workforce in a field that is uniquely at risk. The federal government's ability to attach conditions to the receipt of it's own money is quite broad, and well-protected within the law.

The workforce mandate, in contrast, is not tied to the receipt of federal funds, but is instead intended to function as a backdoor national mandate, which the Federal government lacks even a pretense of authority to do. Neither Congress nor OSHA has ever enacted such a mandate, and, while the court did not rule on the merits of the rule itself, it's stay of the order is the Court's judgment that such an investigation will likely demonstrate that Congress has, at least, not granted OSHA the authority to do so.

A smarter source than I, if you are interested in more. :)
Again, you might have a point if either of those things were mentioned in the decisions.

They weren't, so all you're doing is justifying.
 
Again, you might have a point if either of those things were mentioned in the decisions.

They weren't, so all you're doing is justifying.
Um. If you click on the blue hyperlink, you will see that I quoted the decision.
 
Um. If you click on the blue hyperlink, you will see that I quoted the decision.
It's still incorrect. Congress has specifically granted OSHA the power set emergency rules for workplace safety. It is, in fact, a major portion of their job.
 
Back
Top Bottom