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

[92tide]

They have got to appreciate or at least understand the ultimate result of this decision…the virus prolonged with more mutants expected, and more sickness and death.

How could anybody be so committed to whatever is motivating them, that they make decisions like this? Gee whiz…

they don't care.

 

[92tide]

the pro-life party. or something like that

 

[TideEngineer08]

yup good news, more people are going to die unnecessarily. glad that makes you happy

The vaccinated catch it, spread it, and can still die from it.

 

[92tide]

The vaccinated catch it, spread it, and can still die from it.

at significantly lower rates than the unvaccinated

 

[Jon]

The vaccinated catch it, spread it, and can still die from it.

and the unvaxxed die at 20 times the rate of the vaxxed. Like a seatbelt mandate, do some die wearing one? Yup my wifes 101 year old great grandma died in a wreck wearing hers, her daughter 80+ years old also wearing a seatbelt survived.

So, yes lots more will die unnecessarily

 

[NationalTitles18]

The vaccinated catch it, spread it, and can still die from it.

What characteristics do nearly every one of those people have?

Did you know that if boosted your chance of getting infected is about 88% less, give or take?

Oh, screw it - some buildings and bridges still fail even if reinforced by steel. Screw the building codes. Let's just let building engineers and contractors do what they want since people are going to die anyway.

Despite safety features some planes still crash. Let's get rid of standards. Screw air traffic control while we're at it. Everyone can figure it out as they go. Who cares about reduced risk anyway?

And who needs brakes, crumple zones, seat belts, air bags, or the rest? Forget about them. People die anyway. Let tire makers do whatever they want. Remove all standards and let businesses maximize profits.

Electrical safety standards? Don't need them - people die anyway. They add too much to the cost of a house anyway.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Is there any case law by which the federal government can mandate vaccination among private entities?

I understand (and support) the FedGov's ability to coerce desired behaviors by limiting access to things they fund, such as public schools - but where does the FedGov get the power to force private businesses to do this?

I'm no lawyer, hence the question. I do understand that there has to be something granting the FedGov powers (US Constitution, case law, etc).

 

[NationalTitles18]

Is there any case law by which the federal government can mandate vaccination among private entities?

I understand (and support) the FedGov's ability to coerce desired behaviors by limiting access to things they fund, such as public schools - but where does the FedGov get the power to force private businesses to do this?

I'm no lawyer, hence the question. I do understand that there has to be something granting the FedGov powers (US Constitution, case law, etc).

Others are likely more qualified to answer this question than me, but...

We will ignore the military as that is considered different for a number of reasons.

OSHA has required industries with risk of high exposure for employees to offer certain vaccines for decades, though employees were not required to take them.

Congress granted OSHA the power to make health and safety regulations on industry. I wonder if the conservative justices read the law making those authorizations carefully. I haven't sine it's not my job to do so. I don't need to understand Congress' intent like, say, a supreme court justice striking down a health and safety regulation that is likely to save tens of thousands of lives (or more).

The feds force private businesses to do all manner of things in the name of safety. I haven't read the SCOTUS decision, so I'm not certain which particular arguments they used to justify this deadly decision. I imagine that it came down to individual issues and not business, but I'm not sure.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Others are likely more qualified to answer this question than me, but...

We will ignore the military as that is considered different for a number of reasons.

OSHA has required industries with risk of high exposure for employees to offer certain vaccines for decades, though employees were not required to take them.

Congress granted OSHA the power to make health and safety regulations on industry. I wonder if the conservative justices read the law making those authorizations carefully. I haven't sine it's not my job to do so. I don't need to understand Congress' intent like, say, a supreme court justice striking down a health and safety regulation that is likely to save tens of thousands of lives (or more).

The feds force private businesses to do all manner of things in the name of safety. I haven't read the SCOTUS decision, so I'm not certain which particular arguments they used to justify this deadly decision. I imagine that it came down to individual issues and not business, but I'm not sure.

Yup, I 100% understand all of this, but it doesn't explain where the power for the FedGov to force vaccinations comes from. I'd assume that under 10A that would be a state power, but again, case law can muddy the water.

The decision may simply come down to SCOTUS telling the FedGov "you don't have that power".

 

[NationalTitles18]

Yup, I 100% understand all of this, but it doesn't explain where the power for the FedGov to force vaccinations comes from. I'd assume that under 10A that would be a state power, but again, case law can muddy the water.

The decision may simply come down to SCOTUS telling the FedGov "you don't have that power".

What gives the feds the power to require hard hats on job sites and other workplace safety considerations? Universal precautions in healthcare (gloves and the like)? What gives them power to regulate manufacturing? And so on?

I'd say those powers come from regulation of interstate commerce and likely other powers (police powers, for example).

Congress authorized OSHA to make those rules and regs, so the excuse that Congress did not address it is a weak one (since that is at least one excuse they made to get rid of the health and safety mandate).

 

[crimsonaudio]

What gives the feds the power to require hard hats on job sites and other workplace safety considerations? Universal precautions in healthcare (gloves and the like)? What gives them power to regulate manufacturing? And so on?

I'd say those powers come from regulation of interstate commerce and likely other powers (police powers, for example).

Congress authorized OSHA to make those rules and regs, so the excuse that Congress did not address it is a weak one (since that is at least one excuse they made to get rid of the health and safety mandate).

Well, the point is a vaccine is a different thing than a hard hat or a required railing.

Just because Congress passes something doesn't mean it's allowed under the USC, which is one reason SCOTUS exists. If there's no enumeration of this as a federal power, then they don't have it - otherwise there's no limit to federal power.

Hence my query.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Yup, I 100% understand all of this, but it doesn't explain where the power for the FedGov to force vaccinations comes from. I'd assume that under 10A that would be a state power, but again, case law can muddy the water.

The decision may simply come down to SCOTUS telling the FedGov "you don't have that power".

I think that's what it came down to. There just wasn't enough federal contact. I represent one company with several hundred workers involved in government contracts. Following the court's reasoning, they would be covered. And you are correct - the 1905 Jacobson case involved a state's power to mandate, Mass., IIRC...

 

[NationalTitles18]

Well, the point is a vaccine is a different thing than a hard hat or a required railing.

Just because Congress passes something doesn't mean it's allowed under the USC, which is one reason SCOTUS exists. If there's no enumeration of this as a federal power, then they don't have it - otherwise there's no limit to federal power.

Hence my query.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but this is an an evolving thing. 100 years ago SCOTUS would likely not have allowed OSHA to even exist under interstate commerce, but then things changed.

We should acknowledge that this court has lurched far to the right.

I do realize that vaccines are different and acknowledged that above.

At the same time, OSHA did offer an alternative, so it's not like vaccination was the only viable option or that the vaccines were literally being forced with no alternative.

The only difference between railing, hard hats, and vaccines is where the line is drawn. It reminds me of the old joke about the man offering the woman $1k to sleep with him. When she says yes he asks if $20 will suffice. She is appalled and asks what kind of woman he thinks she is. He answers that that has been established and he's just negotiating the price. A very crude but reasonable metaphor.

 

[Bamaro]

The USSC has been openly blatantly partisan since 2000

 

[crimsonaudio]

The USSC has been openly blatantly partisan since 2000

I don't think that's what's going on here. I think this is a fundamental difference in how the justices read and interpret the US Constitution.

 

[92tide]

i think the fundamental difference is that for the most part the federalist society justices are fundamentally opposed to government regulation of business

 

[B1GTide]

I don't think that's what's going on here. I think this is a fundamental difference in how the justices read and interpret the US Constitution.

Yep - conservative justices would be fine going back to the original version, with blacks as slaves, women as property and all the power residing with the states. And, yes, I know that one is black and another a woman. They are too stupid to realize where their views would put themselves if they really got what they want.

These people are human garbage.

 

[crimsonaudio]

i think the fundamental difference is that for the most part the federalist society justices are fundamentally opposed to government regulation of business

Definitely think some of that is at play here.

But on a more fundamental level, I think the conservative justices are very careful about allowing new / expanded federal powers.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

i think the fundamental difference is that for the most part the federalist society justices are fundamentally opposed to government regulation of business

Digby agrees, but says it's more sinister than that.
The Nightmare of the Radical Roberts Court – Digby's Hullabaloo (digbysblog.net)

 

[92tide]

Definitely think some of that is at play here.

But on a more fundamental level, I think the conservative justices are very careful about allowing new / expanded federal powers.

i think you may be a bit more generous than i am

Digby agrees, but says it's more sinister than that.
The Nightmare of the Radical Roberts Court – Digby's Hullabaloo (digbysblog.net)

yeah, this has been a long time coming, and, at least to me, blatantly obvious for a while

The goal of destroying the government regulatory apparatus that makes America a first-world country is shared by Republicans from Bannon to Utah Sen. Mitt Romney to Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney to Chief Justice John Roberts and every conservative in between. And it’s one of the most radical agendas any political faction has ever advanced. If you want to know why all the Republicans backed Donald Trump even when they knew he was monumentally unfit, this was it. They got their court and their dream is about to come true. Unfortunately, it’s a nightmare for the rest of us.[\quote]