It wasn't given any scrutiny. It was dismissed out of hand. Again, why the SCOTUS majority is in such disrepute.I'm aware of OSHA's argument. I'm aware also that it failed to hold up under scrutiny
Basically turning America into an oligarchical paradise for racists.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.
They didn't.Following the Constitution comprises "partisanship" only to LW Dembots.
You fail.I got it, they didn't vote your way and you're a Little sore?
Can small businesses not wear hard hats on job sites then?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.
Biden instructed OSHA to implement a vaccination requirement for any employer over 100.
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.Can small businesses not wear hard hats on job sites then?
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.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.
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?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 invite everyone to read the opinions.It wasn't given any scrutiny. It was dismissed out of hand.
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 mention distinctions but you fail to describe them. I'd like to hear them.
You might have a point if that was actually mentioned in the decisions.
It wasn't.
...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.
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.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.
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.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.
You fail.
Nonsense.They didn't.
It's call the law, not democrat hopes and feelings.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.
They don't have the votes.Mincing words.
Biden attempted to use OSHA to mandate vaccines. It failed.
My question stands…where is the DNC led legislature?
Make an actual LAW?
You are aware that both sides had to present their case to the Court?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".
Again, you might have a point if either of those things were mentioned in the decisions.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.
Rage?What else could be fueling such rage over the SC decision?
Um. If you click on the blue hyperlink, you will see that I quoted the decision.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.
Rage?
You fail again.
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.Um. If you click on the blue hyperlink, you will see that I quoted the decision.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?