Well, as anticipated, SCOTUS blocks Biden vaccine mandate on 100+ employers...

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
57,384
43,964
462
crimsonaudio.net
Or, it could be that the SCOTUS justices are trying to actually follow their interpretation of the constitution.

No, it's far more logical to assume they want people to die.

Maybe instead of assuming the worst you present the case law that would allow them to rule this a federal power. You know, present evidence rather than just resort to assumptions of evil.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
43,113
37,085
187
Or, it could be that the SCOTUS justices are trying to actually follow their interpretation of the constitution.

No, it's far more logical to assume they want people to die.

Maybe instead of assuming the worst you present the case law that would allow them to rule this a federal power. You know, present evidence rather than just resort to assumptions of evil.
Did you read the dissenting opinion? There is all that you need to know. SCOTUS should not ever make public health decisions. Ever. End of story.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: twofbyc and 92tide

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
57,384
43,964
462
crimsonaudio.net
Did you read the dissenting opinion? There is all that you need to know. SCOTUS should not ever make public health decisions. Ever. End of story.
Yes, so did you read the decision?

It's simply not as cut-and-dried as you want it to be. This is why I asked for legal opinions here - so far one attorney has weighed in and agrees it's likely that they felt it was not the FedGov's authority to mandate such.

Just because you don't like the decision doesn't make it evil. Or wrong, for that matter.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
43,113
37,085
187
Yes, so did you read the decision?

It's simply not as cut-and-dried as you want it to be. This is why I asked for legal opinions here - so far one attorney has weighed in and agrees it's likely that they felt it was not the FedGov's authority to mandate such.

Just because you don't like the decision doesn't make it evil. Or wrong, for that matter.
There is no greater legal opinion than that of the dissenting SCOTUS judges. You might find that inconvenient, but go ahead and trust social media sources more.

You like the opinion, but you are very conservative. I am not surprised that you like it. But you do not understand how much damage your political views are doing to America.

You do you. I am not asking you to change. But you are wrong. Some day America will be a 3rd world country, and today's conservatism will be the cause. Why? Because you make excuses for the inexcusable.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,825
31,472
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
There is no greater legal opinion than that of the dissenting SCOTUS judges. You might find that inconvenient, but go ahead and trust social media sources more.

You like the opinion, but you are very conservative. I am not surprised that you like it. But you do not understand how much damage your political views are doing to America.

You do you. I am not asking you to change. But you are wrong. Some day America will be a 3rd world country, and today's conservatism will be the cause. Why? Because you make excuses for the inexcusable.
To be clear, I didn't say I agreed. What I really meant to convey was that I could understand how the court reached the opinion they did. It's one way of viewing the issue. The same is true of the dissenting side. They have made some off the wall decisions, one being that corporations are the same as humans and their dollars are speech, for example. I don't see this one that way...
 

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
10,437
945
132
I hope they go back to the drawing board and begin with public facing workers and expand from there. SCOTUS has tilted too far right.
Or, it could be that the SCOTUS justices are trying to actually follow their interpretation of the constitution.

No, it's far more logical to assume they want people to die.

Maybe instead of assuming the worst you present the case law that would allow them to rule this a federal power. You know, present evidence rather than just resort to assumptions of evil.
Uhhhh….what does OSHA stand for? Why wouldn’t this fall under their jurisdiction?
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
57,384
43,964
462
crimsonaudio.net
Uhhhh….what does OSHA stand for? Why wouldn’t this fall under their jurisdiction?
Read the ruling - they explain it clearly.

If this falls under OSHA, then so does basically anything that happens in life if you work.

It didn't help that Biden's own chief of staff re-tweeted that the vaccine mandate for private companies is the “ultimate work-around” to issuing a federal vaccine mandate.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
26,910
29,244
262
Mountainous Northern California
Basically that the virus is everywhere, not just particularly in a workplace...
Weak and pathetic excuse by the justices, if you ask me.

Electricity is virtually everywhere and yet OSHA says workplaces must be safe in this regard. An employer can't leave frayed and exposed wires all over.

Water is everywhere, yet employers can't let it be a hazard of the floor or create an infection hazard.

Air is everywhere, yet employers can't fill the workplace with hazardous fumes or even just allow it to be that way without offering protection to workers.

Floors are everywhere, yet employers can't allow them to be a hazard.

Boxes are everywhere, yet employers can't let them block a safety exit.

The justices invented this "standard" out of thin air.
 
Last edited:

UAH

All-American
Nov 27, 2017
3,180
3,378
187
Weak and pathetic excuse by the justices, if you ask me.

Electricity is virtually everywhere and yet OSHA says workplaces must be safe in this regard. An employer can't leave frayed and exposed wires all over.

Water is everywhere, yet employers can't let it be a hazard of the floor or create an infection hazard.

Air is everywhere, yet employers can't fill the workplace with hazardous fumes or even just allow it to be that way without offering protection to workers.

Floors are everywhere, yet employers can't allow them to be a hazard.

Boxes are everywhere, yet employers can't let them block a safety exit.

The justices invented this "standard" our of thin air.
The discussion leaves me to wonder about the status of requiring government contractors to vaccinate employees. If we look at how a government contractor is defined under Executive Orders pursuant to the EEOC and other related legislation a significant majority of the S&P 500 would continue to fall under the government contractor requirement. It will be interesting to see how the court lands on this. Essentially the court is involved in deconstructing the federal governments ability to operate within the structure that has developed since FDR including Republican Presidents.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,825
31,472
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
The discussion leaves me to wonder about the status of requiring government contractors to vaccinate employees. If we look at how a government contractor is defined under Executive Orders pursuant to the EEOC and other related legislation a significant majority of the S&P 500 would continue to fall under the government contractor requirement. It will be interesting to see how the court lands on this. Essentially the court is involved in deconstructing the federal governments ability to operate within the structure that has developed since FDR including Republican Presidents.
I wondered the same. On the radio this AM, they named a couple of large companies which had discontinued their mandates, one being, I believe, GE. GE has numerous government contracts. Gorsuch seems to be set on the "delegation principle." The enforcement of the mandate varies greatly from agency to agency. In fact, there's wide difference between the different agencies we deal with on Redstone...
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
57,384
43,964
462
crimsonaudio.net
Weak and pathetic excuse by the justices, if you ask me.

Electricity is virtually everywhere and yet OSHA says workplaces must be safe in this regard. An employer can't leave frayed and exposed wires all over.

Water is everywhere, yet employers can't let it be a hazard of the floor or create an infection hazard.

Air is everywhere, yet employers can't fill the workplace with hazardous fumes or even just allow it to be that way without offering protection to workers.

Floors are everywhere, yet employers can't allow them to be a hazard.

Boxes are everywhere, yet employers can't let them block a safety exit.

The justices invented this "standard" out of thin air.
Again, as they said in the ruling - if that's the standard, there's no limit as to what OSHA has control over.
 
  • Facepalm
Reactions: B1GTide

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
43,113
37,085
187
Again, as they said in the ruling - if that's the standard, there's no limit as to what OSHA has control over.
No, that is what those people said. That does not make it true. Proof - this ruling. Because until today, OSHA was allowed to make rulings like this. They could have allowed this and come down when/if OSHA really did overstep.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
57,384
43,964
462
crimsonaudio.net
No, that is what those people said. That does not make it true. Proof - this ruling. Because until today, OSHA was allowed to make rulings like this. They could have allowed this and come down when/if OSHA really did overstep.
LOL, OSHA has never before had this kind of power, there was nothing routine about it.
 
  • Facepalm
Reactions: B1GTide

Amazon Prime / TideFans.shop


Your purchase through our Amazon affiliation and TideFans.shop links helps support the site! Thanks!