High Noon at High Court for Vax Mandate

[Kamaji]

Splitting the baby.  MFers.

Why?

If one takes federal money, one usually gets stuck with all the conditions that come attached to that money - if the devil pays the piper, he gets to call the tune.

The mandate, as such, is apparently not within federal power, but the mandate as a string attached to federal money is; the Court has for a long time allowed Congress to impose as conditions on federal funding requirements that it could not independently impose on its own.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why?

If one takes federal money, one usually gets stuck with all the conditions that come attached to that money - if the devil pays the piper, he gets to call the tune.

The mandate, as such, is apparently not within federal power, but the mandate as a string attached to federal money is; the Court has for a long time allowed Congress to impose as conditions on federal funding requirements that it could not independently impose on its own.

Sounds about right.  The important thing is the stopped the OSHA brutality it seems.  IANAL.

[Kamaji]

The Court's opinions:

Biden v. Missouri (the federally funded healthcare mandate):  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf

NFIB v. OSHA (the OSHA mandate):  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

The NFIB case, concerning the OSHA mandate, was an appeal from the 6th Circuit's denial of a continued stay on the OSHA mandate.  The Court reinstated the stay.

Here is the gist of the basis for their opinion:

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute.  They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees.

[libertybele]

I will be stunned to lose Barrett.  But I could fathom losing Kavanaugh.  Roberts is 50-50 at best.

All three asked questions specific to the 1970 law, which cannot be defended.  Roberts is always looking at what Congress did (which in this case has been silence for half a century).  Barrett is weighing the justification for temporary action from a law that does not justify permanent action.  And Kavanaugh is a party partisan who could easily sell out the American people if his Party thought they could derive more power from it.

To think that there was such a fight to get Kavanaugh on the bench - what a waste!

[Ghost Bear]

The court was divided in both cases. The court ruled 6-3 with the six conservative justices in the majority and three liberal justices dissenting in blocking the broader workplace ruling. The vote was 5-4 to allow the healthcare worker rule, with two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the liberals in the majority.

Looks like I got the breakdown on the healthcare worker ruling correct, at least.

[Bigun]

Splitting the baby.  MFers.

It will be interesting to see how healthcare gets conducted with no workers.

I'll bet BIG that the administration is forced to rescind this themselves.

[Kamaji]

Sounds about right.  The important thing is the stopped the OSHA brutality it seems.  IANAL.

I agree.  I don't like the health worker mandate, either, but it is, unfortunately, longstanding law that the federal government can willy-nilly impose conditions on getting federal funds.

The OSHA opinion was not a final decision, but rather about whether the trial court's stay should remain in place, and the Court rather unequivocally indicates - to me, at least - that the plaintiffs will win on this one.

[DCPatriot]

To think that there was such a fight to get Kavanaugh on the bench - what a waste!

Looking for any 'Silver Lining' here... it's that this may shut their mouths over packing the Court for a bit.

[Cyber Liberty]

The Court's opinions:

Biden v. Missouri (the federally funded healthcare mandate):  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf

NFIB v. OSHA (the OSHA mandate):  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

The NFIB case, concerning the OSHA mandate, was an appeal from the 6th Circuit's denial of a continued stay on the OSHA mandate.  The Court reinstated the stay.

Here is the gist of the basis for their opinion:

This is about "What's the law?" opposed to "What is "morally right?"  The law must prevail, or there is no order. 

The deck is stacked against our side, but who's fault is that, anyway?

[Hoodat]

Why?

If one takes federal money, one usually gets stuck with all the conditions that come attached to that money - if the devil pays the piper, he gets to call the tune.

If you choose to be a whore for other people's money, then you have to do what the trick asks.

[Hoodat]

This is about "What's the law?" opposed to "What is "morally right?"  The law must prevail, or there is no order. 

The deck is stacked against our side, but who's fault is that, anyway?

Again, it comes back to balancing the budget.  This money which the federal government uses to dictate hospital hiring rules would not be available if government was forced to live within its means.

Stop deficit spending, and you stop funding our political enemies.

[Kamaji]

This is about "What's the law?" opposed to "What is "morally right?"  The law must prevail, or there is no order. 

The deck is stacked against our side, but who's fault is that, anyway?

And, WADR, it appears to me that the law was respected here.  The OSHA stay is upheld because, as the 6-justice majority states, OSHA almost certainly exceeded the boundaries of its authority.  On the other hand, the medicare/medicaid stay is dissolved because the agency in question does have authority to condition grants of federal funds on the fulfillment of a variety of conditions.  Congress did not grant the authority in the first instance, but did in the second.

[Kamaji]

If you choose to be a whore for other people's money, then you have to do what the trick asks.

That's another way of putting it.

[Free Vulcan]

Looking for any 'Silver Lining' here... it's that this may shut their mouths over packing the Court for a bit.

I thought the same thing, and you can be certain that it was in the back of Robert's mind too.

[Kamaji]

Looking for any 'Silver Lining' here... it's that this may shut their mouths over packing the Court for a bit.

That's a good point.  This would give Manchin and Sinema support for the argument that the Court is sufficiently independent that the benefits from packing it would not sufficiently outweigh the costs of doing so.

[dfwgator]

If you choose to be a whore for other people's money, then you have to do what the trick asks.

"If you take the King's Coin,  you do the King's Bidding."

[DCPatriot]

I thought the same thing, and you can be certain that it was in the back of Robert's mind too.

LOL!  I believe Chief Justice Roberts is more concerned with blackmail.  He's sure ashamed of something out there.

[Hoodat]

NFIB v. OSHA (the OSHA mandate):  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

The dissent is so overrun with falsehoods and outright lies that no one Justice would take credit for writing it.

The Standard falls within the core of the agency’s mission: to “protect employees” from “grave danger” that comes from
“new hazards” or exposure to harmful agents.

Masks and vaccines do not "protect employees".  Covid is not a "new hazard" nor does it pose a "grave danger" in the workplace.

The applicants are not “likely to prevail” under any proper view of the law. OSHA’s rule perfectly fits the language of the applicable statutory provision.

Complete bullshit.

Once again, that provision commands—not just enables, but commands—OSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard .  .  .

'Vaccines' [sic] are not temporary.

OSHA estimates—and there is no ground for disputing—that the Standard will save over 6,500 lives and prevent over 250,000 hospitalizations in six months’ time.

Again, complete bullshit.

[Hoodat]

LOL!  I believe Chief Justice Roberts is more concerned with blackmail.  He's sure ashamed of something out there.

See the two short ones in the photo below:

[Kamaji]

The dissent is so overrun with falsehoods and outright lies that no one Justice would take credit for writing it.


Masks and vaccines do not "protect employees".  Covid is not a "new hazard" nor does it pose a "grave danger" in the workplace.


Complete bullshit.


'Vaccines' [sic] are not temporary.


Again, complete bullshit.

The last point is not only b.s., it's irrelevant to the question of whether OSHA has the power in the first place.

[Smokin Joe]

The last point is not only b.s., it's irrelevant to the question of whether OSHA has the power in the first place.

Did COngress have the power to delegate to anyone else?

Short answer: No.

If Congress had to seek a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcoholic beverages from human consumption, then as the Constitution stood, the Congress could not take that step with mere statute. Congress had no power to regulate what one could or could not consume. That power was repealed with the Prohibition Amendment, which took ANOTHER Constitutional Amendment to repeal.

Congress never had the power to delegate.

[Kamaji]

Did COngress have the power to delegate to anyone else?

Short answer: No.

If Congress had to seek a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcoholic beverages from human consumption, then as the Constitution stood, the Congress could not take that step with mere statute. Congress had no power to regulate what one could or could not consume. That power was repealed with the Prohibition Amendment, which took ANOTHER Constitutional Amendment to repeal.

Congress never had the power to delegate.

I disagree, but we can leave that for another day.

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court blocks Biden's vaccine-or-test mandate for employers

The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked the Biden administration's vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers, but allowed a vaccine-only mandate for health providers at federally-funded facilities. 

The high court ruled 6-3 against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) employer mandate, blocking it from taking effect while other legal challenges play out.   

The court ruled 5-4 to keep the health care worker mandate, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the more liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.   
ADVERTISEMENT

The Biden administration has argued that both policies are necessary in order to get as many people vaccinated against COVID-19 as possible. President Biden has indicated he is running out of patience with Americans who refuse to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, and the rules were meant to force the issue in order to make workplaces safer.

The employer policy would have required companies with at least 100 workers to mandate all employees be vaccinated, or provide weekly negative coronavirus test results and wear face coverings to work on-site. 

The White House said the order covered about 17 million health care workers, while the requirement on large companies would have covered more than 80 million employees, about two-thirds of the American workforce.

While lower courts were split, the conservative Supreme Court majority ruled the employer vaccine-or-test mandate was an overreach. The justices said the challengers, a coalition of businesses and 27 Republican-led states, were likely to succeed on the merits. 

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate dissenting opinions. Thomas and Alito were joined by fellow conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in dissent.

In their opinions, both Thomas and Alito said they would have denied the Biden administration’s request, making clear their view the government failed to establish that it has adequate legal justification for the mandate. 

more
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/589633-supreme-court-blocks-bidens-vaccine-or-test-mandate-for-employers

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court Rejects Biden’s OSHA Vaccine Mandate on Private Employers; Upholds CMS Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate on large private businesses through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on Thursday, but upheld a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate.

https://www.breitbart.com/health/2022/01/13/supreme-court-rejects-bidens-osha-vaccine-mandate-on-private-employers-upholds-cms-mandate/

[catfish1957]

https://twitter.com/kevincorke/status/1481710701848768514

Does a medical facility that doesn't take federal funds even exist?  I am guessing medicare or medicaid fits that bill.