1 edit
@vivify saidPutting aside the politics (very hard, I know), let's look at the basis for the opinion. The basis was actually quite narrow. It's wasn't constitutional and it certainly wasn't about whether the vax mandate is a good idea. In essence, the Court concluded that COVID is not "occupational" i.e., it has nothing to do with the office. COVID transmission isn't a risk that's unique to the workplace any more than it is to the supermarket or the concert hall.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-covid-19/index.html
"Supreme Court blocks nationwide vaccine and testing mandate for large businesses, allows health care worker vaccine mandate to take effect".
As expected, the ruling was split between party lines, struck down by conservative Justices.
At the same time time, conservatives blame Biden for the spread of Covid.
This OSHA regulation is being used as a backdoor way to manage national health policy because most people work in places of business. It not really about workplace safety any more than it is about safety in general.
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. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
Those wishing to criticize the Court's decision may have reasonable grounds to do so, but you need to start by addressing why you think this argument is invalid.
@wajoma saidLife is not an action and I have to do nothing to be alive - unless you mean eat and breathe. Do I have a right to food? I suspect you will argue that I don’t. So what act do you mean?
Life is an action, it requires you to do it. You have a right to life, this means that you have a right to live, it doesn't mean others must provide the means of living; food, clothing, shelter, a medical procedure.
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. Do you think you're only alive because the government grants you permission to live? Your ...[text shortened]... id it couldn't happen here, it couldn't happen to me.
There should be a warning on the packaging.
@sh76 saidBy minimizing Covid as a "hazard of daily life", this majority conservative supreme court is using the same tired right-wing talking point that Covid is just another run-of-the-mill issue people need to deal with, like a cold or flu.
Putting aside the politics (very hard, I know), let's look at the basis for the opinion. The basis was actually quite narrow. It's wasn't constitutional and it certainly wasn't about whether the vax mandate is a good idea. In essence, the Court concluded that COVID is not "occupational" i.e., it has nothing to do with the office. COVID transmission isn't a risk that's unique to ...[text shortened]... onable grounds to do so, but you need to start by addressing why you think this argument is invalid.
Hospitals were so overcrowded from Covid patients, stadiums and abandoned buildings needed to be converted into hospitals, and the military had to send ships to be used because emergency rooms were flooded. That is far more serious than a mere "hazard of daily life" that SCOTUS is trying to minimize this as. This is the third year since Covid hit the U.S. and hospitals, as we speak, are still being overcrowded.
This would be like striking down radiation mandates near Chernobyl because it's now a "hazard of daily life".
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@wajoma saidCommon ground,........ ?
Anyone that is over weight, unfit (you've had 2 years to get in shape) indulges in reckless activities like unprotected sex with strangers, or dangerous sports should all be banned from public health care too. Many cancers are bought on by lifestyle choices too so they can be banned from public health care as well. Finally we agree on something and while we're at it anyone be ...[text shortened]... he seizure syrup you pay for the seizure syrup.
We have common ground, I like the way you think.
1 edit
@sh76 saidHaven't read the decision or the dissents yet, but seriously doubt the Congress that passed OSHA meant that the agency could only address dangers to workers that occur exclusively at work. Much of what OSHA does be invalidated under such an arbitrary standard; you can fall off a ladder at home, does that mean OSHA cannot regulate workplace ladders?
Putting aside the politics (very hard, I know), let's look at the basis for the opinion. The basis was actually quite narrow. It's wasn't constitutional and it certainly wasn't about whether the vax mandate is a good idea. In essence, the Court concluded that COVID is not "occupational" i.e., it has nothing to do with the office. COVID transmission isn't a risk that's unique to ...[text shortened]... onable grounds to do so, but you need to start by addressing why you think this argument is invalid.
There is no question that COVID19 is a danger to workers, that going to work increases that danger and that absences and fatalities caused by COVID19 have a significant impact on commerce. The mandate should have been upheld.
As for the real world effects of such a flawed decision: Supreme Court blow to Biden vaccine mandate means more suffering, deaths and overfilled hospitals, expert says, as U.S. sets fresh COVID record: https://on.mktw.net/3qsLgND
@no1marauder saidI'm curious, as you seem to study SCOTUS, what are some 'other' flawed decisions?
Haven't read the decision or the dissents yet, but seriously doubt the Congress that passed OSHA meant that the agency could only address dangers to workers that occur exclusively at work. Much of what OSHA does be invalidated under such an arbitrary standard; you can fall off a ladder at home, does that mean OSHA cannot regulate workplace ladders?
There is no ...[text shortened]... and overfilled hospitals, expert says, as U.S. sets fresh COVID record: https://on.mktw.net/3qsLgND
It would also be nice if you could encapsulate their reasonings on the OSHA decision. It was already obvious out of the gate that there was no way for them to rule otherwise, as I have stated before. It would probably only be a few pages of findings.
SCOTUS must really tire of the requests by libs to hear these weenie cases. There are many we never even know about. Conservatives don't send many over, as we are all too busy being productive and independent.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidSCOTUS has a little more time on their hands once they dealt with all those "weenie" cases trying to overturn the last election. 😛
I'm curious, as you seem to study SCOTUS, what are some 'other' flawed decisions?
It would also be nice if you could encapsulate their reasonings on the OSHA decision. It was already obvious out of the gate that there was no way for them to rule otherwise, as I have stated before. It would probably only be a few pages of findings.
SCOTUS must really tire of t ...[text shortened]... about. Conservatives don't send many over, as we are all too busy being productive and independent.
btw, did you ever get around to answering my question a while back ?
You know.......who do you think won the 2020 election ? Yeah. That one !! 🤔
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThis ruling could invalid other vaccine mandates, such as for children to attend school? What's to stop anti-vaxxers from using this a a precedent to stop such requirements?
Haven't read the decision or the dissents yet, but seriously doubt the Congress that passed OSHA meant that the agency could only address dangers to workers that occur exclusively at work. Much of what OSHA does be invalidated under such an arbitrary standard; you can fall off a ladder at home, does that mean OSHA cannot regulate workplace ladders?
There is no ...[text shortened]... and overfilled hospitals, expert says, as U.S. sets fresh COVID record: https://on.mktw.net/3qsLgND
@mghrn55 saidI think Biden was the winner, even in the face of fidgeting with thousands of ballots. There were not enough of those, even if they were for Trump, to turn the election. What a waste of time. A waste, kinda like all the typing you fellers do about Jan 5th, or was it 6th, as if people are reading your every ho-hum word. 😴
SCOTUS has a little more time on their hands once they dealt with all those "weenie" cases trying to overturn the last election. 😛
btw, did you ever get around to answering my question a while back ?
You know.......who do you think won the 2020 election ? Yeah. That one !! 🤔
@vivify saidNo, because the ruling (as I understand it; still haven't read the actual text) merely said that Congress didn't give OSHA the authority to mandate vaccines (or presumably do a lot of other things) - it does not apply to State or local mandates.
This ruling could invalid other vaccine mandates, such as for children to attend school? What's to stop anti-vaxxers from using this a a precedent to stop such requirements?
@averagejoe1 saidThe case was brought to court by conservatives seeking to overturn the mandate.
I'm curious, as you seem to study SCOTUS, what are some 'other' flawed decisions?
It would also be nice if you could encapsulate their reasonings on the OSHA decision. It was already obvious out of the gate that there was no way for them to rule otherwise, as I have stated before. It would probably only be a few pages of findings.
SCOTUS must really tire of t ...[text shortened]... about. Conservatives don't send many over, as we are all too busy being productive and independent.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@averagejoe1 said...................WRONG AGAIN
I'm curious, as you seem to study SCOTUS, what are some 'other' flawed decisions?
It would also be nice if you could encapsulate their reasonings on the OSHA decision. It was already obvious out of the gate that there was no way for them to rule otherwise, as I have stated before. It would probably only be a few pages of findings.
SCOTUS must really tire of t ...[text shortened]... about. Conservatives don't send many over, as we are all too busy being productive and independent.
''............. requests by libs to hear these weenie cases.............''
The case was brought by,
'The National Federation of Independent Businesses.'
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@vivify saidTHANKS SCOTUS
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-covid-19/index.html
"Supreme Court blocks nationwide vaccine and testing mandate for large businesses, allows health care worker vaccine mandate to take effect".
As expected, the ruling was split between party lines, struck down by conservative Justices.
At the same time time, conservatives blame Biden for the spread of Covid.
https://news.yahoo.com/thanks-supreme-court-now-free-114111819.html
@averagejoe1 saidSo let's take this one step further.......
I think Biden was the winner, even in the face of fidgeting with thousands of ballots. There were not enough of those, even if they were for Trump, to turn the election. What a waste of time. A waste, kinda like all the typing you fellers do about Jan 5th, or was it 6th, as if people are reading your every ho-hum word. 😴
You don't want to say Trump won for fear of embarrassing yourself.
But you want to say there were enough irregularities to justify the wave of state legislation to reduce "voter fraud".
Because in the 2020 election, mail-in ballots raised red flags all over the place, correct ?
The question I put to you is.......
Were the red flags about voter fraud ??
Or were the red flags about mail-in ballots nullifying the voter suppression tactics already in place ?
You know ...... re-districting, gerrymandering, etc ....
I ask because, if you really think about it, a voter who has to travel 15 miles, for example, to stand in line for hours at understaffed voting stations, might think it is easier to just mail in a ballot. Hmmm ??? 🤔
I'm all for tightening up and improving the mail in ballot system but .......
Banning bringing water to voters standing in line ???? Really ?? Really ?? 😆