Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, January 13, 2022

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Joe Biden's vaccine and testing requirement aimed at large businesses, but it allowed a vaccine mandate for certain health care workers to go into effect nationwide.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

...The court allowed a separate rule to take effect requiring shots for workers in nursing homes, hospitals and other facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments from the federal government....

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 02:37 PM | Reply

We should do it Texas style and put bounties on the unvaccinated!

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 02:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Sorry, you little fascist -----.

You lose. :)

#3 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-01-13 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The Supreme Court just condemned a few hundred thousand more Republicans to death.

Ah, well.....Freedom.

#4 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-13 02:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lose what? Nobody is going to miss the COVID suicides.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 03:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#3 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

The Supreme Court just condemned a few more of your friends and family to death.

Ah, well....Relationships are over-valued.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-13 03:00 PM | Reply

You lose. :)

#3 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT A

Like SNOOFY says, we don't think we lost anything at all.

Funeral homes....Own stock in any?

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-13 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's nice to see SCOTUS act as a check against attempts by the Executive for limitless powers.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-13 03:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

It's nice to see SCOTUS act as a check against attempts by the Executive for limitless powers.

#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT

The Supreme Court has come down firmly on the rights of a virus to spread and mutate into yet deadlier forms.

This IS the sort of thing you people celebrate. We've come to expect it.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-13 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dead people can't be Republicans or worship Donald Trump.

But Donald Trump and Republicans don't give a ---- about dead people, so it's all good.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-13 03:13 PM | Reply

"Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly," the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

"Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category," the court wrote.

#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-01-13 03:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"the court wrote in an unsigned opinion."

Wow.

What remarkable cowardice to not put their names on this.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 03:15 PM | Reply

Typical conservative stupidity. Sad day for the health of the American populace.

#13 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-01-13 03:19 PM | Reply

It's nice to see SCOTUS act as a check against attempts by the Executive for limitless powers.
#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Limitless?

It affects less than a quarter of Americans.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 03:21 PM | Reply

@#8 ... It's nice to see SCOTUS act as a check against attempts by the Executive for limitless powers. ...

In some respects I agree.

On the other hand...

More Than Half of Workers Would Consider Quitting Before Returning to the Office
www.bloomberg.com

...Workers grew more uncomfortable about heading back to the office in the first week of the year and were much more likely to consider quitting if their employer demanded they return, a sign that companies' efforts to get people back amid rising Covid caseloads face stiff resistance....


#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 03:30 PM | Reply

As a legal matter, now that there's no Federal mandate, does this open up employers to liability for when employees get COVID in workplaces that don't enforce safety rules?

I think Congress already indemnified employers against those claims though.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 03:33 PM | Reply

After Sotomayor got called out for spreading outright lies and misinformation the other day, I doubt she would want to sign anything. She thought she'd skate right on, but she got he ass called out for the world to see.

#17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-01-13 03:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wise White Man.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 03:45 PM | Reply

So, is the SC going to allow everyone to go maskless in their courtroom?

*Laughing* if anyone thinks so.

#19 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-01-13 04:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wise White Man.

#4 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-01-13 03:45 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

That's all you got? How do you even know what color I am? Are your racist/prejudiced roots that deep?

#20 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-01-13 04:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How dare I assume you even have a gender!

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 04:12 PM | Reply

I forget how deep your racists roots go. You can tell a person's color just by reading their posts. I don't have that gift. Tell us your secret, snoofy. Is it key words that tip you off?

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-01-13 04:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Same people cheering on this decision will come after Biden for the continued pandemic.

Bunch of morons.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-01-13 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I'm glad they upheld the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers:

In a separate, simultaneously released ruling on the administration's vaccination rules for health-care workers, a 5-4 majority sided with the Biden administration.

"We agree with the Government that the [Health and Human Services] Secretary's rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him," said the majority, writing that the rule "fits neatly within the language of the statute."

"After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm," the majority opinion read.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, four of the six conservatives on the nine-seat bench, dissented.

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-01-13 04:33 PM | Reply

Tell us your secret, snoofy. Is it key words that tip you off?
#7 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Rachel Dolezal, welcome to the Drudge Retort.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 04:49 PM | Reply

"So, is the SC going to allow everyone to go maskless in their courtroom?"

The decision has nothing to do with masking.

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-01-13 05:01 PM | Reply

"The decision has nothing to do with masking."

What a relief.
So many of us like to mask debate.
Some of y'all even like to mask debate in public!

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 05:04 PM | Reply

Same people cheering on this decision will come after Biden for the continued pandemic.

#16 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Of course.

This Supreme Court decision, and the glee with which Trumpites greet it, will only accelerate the trend of Liberals accepting that the lives of Right-wingers are absolutely as valueless as they behave them to be.

I support the Right's desire for the freedom to drown in a ditch. You people don't want to be saved, we get that. Happy extinction.

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-13 05:34 PM | Reply

Lol!

Jill Stein 2024!

Also, I'll be typing variations on that for the next 30 years or so while the Green Party voters' SCOTUS master plan plays out.

#30 | Posted by censored at 2022-01-13 06:30 PM | Reply

@#16 ... Same people cheering on this decision will come after Biden for the continued pandemic....

That is the part that baffles me.

A political party is against getting vaccinated, yet not being vaccinated is killing off members of that political party.

It strikes me as being as absurd logic as saying (sometimes seemingly with glee) that liberals moving from blue states to red states is a good thing for the GOP in those red states. I mean what was so bad in those red states to begin with that the influx of liberals will make things better?


Over 91% Democrats vaccinated, while only 60% Republicans have taken one shot, data reveals
www.theguardian.com

...Of every 100,000 residents, 25 died of Covid in Trump counties in October, compared to the 7.8 in Biden-voting counties...


#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So long suckers!

#32 | Posted by censored at 2022-01-13 07:58 PM | Reply

It's nice to see SCOTUS act as a check against attempts by the Executive for limitless powers.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger

You mean the SCOTUS composed of mostly judges who were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote?

Your cult relies on a senate that doesn't reflect america, a SCOTUS that doesn't reflect america, and a white house that doesn't reflect america to keep them in power.

The only federal body that almost represents the american people is the house, but gerrymandering ruins even that.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-01-13 08:04 PM | Reply

Sorry, you little fascist -----.
You lose. :)

#3 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Dems: "Hey, get a vaccine and wear a mask to help mitigate a public health crisis!"
Repubs: FASCISTS!

*rabid MAGA idiots storm the capitol*
Repubs: Meh. Just an unruly tour group that took some pictures and left. No biggy.

You people are so ------ in the head you don't even realize how ------ in the heady you are.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-13 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The Supreme Court has come down firmly on the rights of a virus to spread and mutate into yet deadlier forms.

Odd conclusion, the SC has left in place several state and local mandates as well as the federal mandate for health care workers.

This ruling has to do with the limitations on the power Congress granted the Executive when the OSHA statute was enacted.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-13 08:28 PM | Reply

Luckily, under SCOTUS precedent (travel ban), Biden can just do another vaccine mandate and tweak the details a bit and they will allow it to remain in effect.

Just kidding, Republicans don't care about precedent and SCOTUS is a joke.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#23 ... Dems: "Hey, get a vaccine and wear a mask to help mitigate a public health crisis!"
Repubs: FASCISTS!

*rabid MAGA idiots storm the capitol*
Repubs: Meh. Just an unruly tour group that took some pictures and left. No biggy. ...

I agree with the portion I quoted.

The rest of the comment may be correct. Or not.

I do not know if the people are "f--cked in the heady" or if they are just buying into politics as if it were a religion instead of a viewpoint.


#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 08:30 PM | Reply

This was a great ruling by SCOTUS. This will kill lots of trumpers in red states. Happy days!

#38 | Posted by bored at 2022-01-13 08:33 PM | Reply

#24 Hilarious. Take a look at the original OSHA statute moron. It was created to address, among other things, "illnesses arising out of work situations." Its stated purpose was to foster "healthful working conditions." It, quite literally, authorized the Secretary of Labor to "set mandatory ... health standards applicable to businesses." It also, literally, commanded the Secretary of Labor to act on information he gets from the Secretary of HHS to "promulgate" a "health standard."

This is rightwing judicial activism, plain and simple. And Trumpers love it because it squares with their politics. There is nothing else deeper going on here.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#28 The OSHA powers were never intended to be anywhere near this broad, or arbitrary - a 100 employee threshold, are you kidding me?

The judicial activism came from the dissent.

#40 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-13 08:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

LOL!

And yet they, knowing any of them could end up in the hospital, said "oh, but the mandate's perfectly OK for Health Care workers!"

#41 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-13 08:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just think about the meatpackers in SD and other locations, "Critical workers," "Essential workers." But not enough to require vaccination. This ruling is genuinely one stupid right-wing pile of ideological garbage.

#42 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-13 08:51 PM | Reply

"Just think about the meatpackers in SD and other locations, "Critical workers," "Essential workers." But not enough to require vaccination."

Exactly.
Americans don't even have a right to a safe workplace.

Congratulations, Republicans. You build that!

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 08:54 PM | Reply

This ruling has to do with the limitations on the power Congress granted the Executive when the OSHA statute was enacted.
#24 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Requiring vaccines or testing for incurable contagious diseases for workplace safety is apparently beyond those limitations.

That kind of thinking is unexplainable.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 08:59 PM | Reply

The OSHA powers were never intended to be anywhere near this broad

And yet my post is cribbed from the Congressional findings, intent, and implementing statute. So what the ---- is your post based on?

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 09:00 PM | Reply

-This ruling has to do with the limitations on the power Congress granted the Executive when the OSHA statute was enacted.

What if the statute was edited to grant more authority to OSHA?

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-13 09:02 PM | Reply

#35 You dont need to edit it. You just need to read it.

It's super easy to do. SCOTUS decided not to.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 09:04 PM | Reply

"What if the statute was edited to grant more authority to OSHA?"

Or OSHA could just re-write the law. It took Trump three tries to get his Muslim ban to work.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 09:06 PM | Reply

@#1 ... Just think about the meatpackers in SD and other locations, "Critical workers," "Essential workers." ...

In my reading that aspect was not "critical workers" but employees of employers that receive federal money via, e.g. Medicare.


I'll say again, in some respects, I like this opinion that restricts the power of the Executive branch.

So I'm waiting to see how Pres Biden responds.

#49 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 09:07 PM | Reply

"Because Viruses Respect State Boundaries."

#50 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-13 09:11 PM | Reply

in some respects, I like this opinion that restricts the power of the Executive branch.

The problems are that:

1. This particular court will only "restrict the executive branch" when doing so squares with their politics;
2. This opinion flies in the face of the statute's stated purpose AND its implementing/power-confereing language; and
3. People will literally die as a result of this opinion.

But i guess if you're cool with all that, then yeah, it's a dank ass opinion

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 09:14 PM | Reply

@#40 ... The problems are that: ...

#1 - This particular court will only "restrict the executive branch" when doing so squares with their politics;

Maybe. This opinion can also be applied to other areas of Executive overreach.

#2 - This opinion flies in the face of the statute's stated purpose AND its implementing/power-confereing language

Stated without substantions.

#3 - People will literally die as a result of this opinion.

Agreed. But that was not the issue presented to the Court. Executive overreach was. If the court decides that Executive overreach is OK, where else might it be applied?

#52 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1. This particular court will only "restrict the executive branch" when doing so squares with their politics;

Do you have an example where they rubber-stamped an expansion of executive power?

#53 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-13 09:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Maybe. This opinion can also be applied to other areas of Executive overreach.

Laughable that you impute some level of consistency to this court.

Stated without substantions.

I assume you meant "substantiation." See #28.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 09:27 PM | Reply

@#42 ... Do you have an example where they rubber-stamped an expansion of executive power? ...

You seem to quote my comment where I state that I am against the expansion of Executive Power, but ask where I have an example of the Supreme Court rubber-stamped an expansion of executive power.

So I gotta ask, did you read my comment?

If so, why does your reply to the comment seem as if you did not.

#55 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 09:36 PM | Reply

Do you have an example where they rubber-stamped an expansion of executive power?
#42 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Yes. The ruling lifting an injunction on Trump's public charge rules making it harder for poor immigrants to get green cards was one. Diverting military funds for the border wall was another. You could google it if you actually cared as there are several other examples, but my guess is you're hoping i'll just give some example you can argue about instead of just acquiescing the obvious.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-13 09:39 PM | Reply

#44 Lamplighter - my #22 was directed at Joe, not you.

#57 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-13 09:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#46 ... #44 Lamplighter - my #22 was directed at Joe, not you. ...

OK, thanks for the followup.

#58 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 09:48 PM | Reply

Americans don't even have a right to a safe workplace.

If you are vaccinated, what are you scared of?

#59 | Posted by boaz at 2022-01-13 09:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#28

Joe gets his panties in a wad and starts slinging invective like a petulant child.

This particular court will only "restrict the executive branch" when doing so squares with their politics;

If it's politics why would they uphold the health care worker mandate and the state and local mandates they previously left in place?

This opinion flies in the face of the statute's stated purpose AND its implementing/power-confereing language;

Yes, the statute permits imposing standards for workplace hazards. Covid, in my opinion, is not a just a workplace hazard. It's a hazard we all face. Doesn't matter whether we work or not. Doesn't matter whether we have 100 co-workers or 1. The Court gave examples of more narrow circumstances where workplace mandate would be acceptable.

People will literally die as a result of this opinion.

People are going to die of Covid with or without this opinion.

What say you about the Court's discussion of the "major question" doctrine. See if you can avoid the childish invective. In my best Mr. Rodgers voice, "I'm sure you can."

#60 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-13 09:50 PM | Reply

The ruling lifting an injunction on Trump's public charge rules making it harder for poor immigrants to get green cards was one.

When I googled it SCOTUS overruled an injunction by a lower court (and jeez was the reporting that I sifted through horribly biased - it's really pathetic how much left-wing editorializing infects what are supposed straight news stories)

As for the wall funding:

"Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with"

I disagreed with Trump - it was a clear end-around of congress which you undoubtedly cheered with DACA, but I digress.

Regardless, cases are dismissed all of the time for a lack of standing. That ruling didn't kill the issue by any stretch.

#61 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-13 09:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The one ruling that went against Biden that bothered my was overruling his recision of "remain in Mexico".

I felt that it was a very good policy, but that's beside the point. It was a deal that Trump negotiated but was never ratified by the Senate. That means that Biden should have the ability to undo it.

#62 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-13 10:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

@#48 ... If you are vaccinated, what are you scared of? ...

Speaking personally...

I am not afraid of much.

But I do have a concern...

Catching COVID from an unvaccinated person who may not be wearing a mask while I shop for needed groceries. While I have taken the steps to avoid infection, those steps are not absolute. With my underlying medical conditions, I might die (actually, likely to die) if I get COVID.

Is that what you want to see?

Seriously, do you want to possibly kill off members of your community?


#63 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 10:04 PM | Reply

If you are vaccinated, what are you scared of?
#48 | POSTED BY BOAZ

That's a good question, but it isn't really about me, it's about keeping American workers safe at work.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 10:07 PM | Reply

@#49 ... People are going to die of Covid with or without this opinion. ...

But will more or less people die as a result of this opinion?

Your lawyer training seems to be coming out here, argue anything, even if it is irrelevant.

:)


#65 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-13 10:07 PM | Reply

Congress decided we should have an Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Congress decided they should be tasked with all the things Joe outlined above.

Now we're told that's illegal.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 10:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Rcade keeps this tanked on the back page - LMAO.

#67 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-01-13 10:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But I do have a concern...Catching COVID from an unvaccinated person who may not be wearing a mask while I shop for needed groceries.

But you can "catch COVID" from a vaccinated person, too, whilst you shop for needed groceries.

It must be very difficult to carry that much concern upon your shoulders.

Do you have access to professional people who specialize in helping others cope with these types of obsessive disorders?

#68 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-01-13 10:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#12 That's because there's another thread where some people even talked about the issue a little bit.

Or, it's because you're a victim.

Your call. ;)

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 10:58 PM | Reply

"But you can "catch COVID" from a vaccinated person, too, whilst you shop for needed groceries."

Probably not as likely to happen, as a vaccinated person is taking the disease seriously, and will be more likely to quarantine.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-13 10:59 PM | Reply

Probably not as likely to happen, as a vaccinated person is taking the disease seriously, and will be more likely to quarantine.

I'd argue it's more likely to happen, as most vaccinated persons, like most unvaccinated persons, never know they're infected and shedding it.

But the vaccinated person is more likely to believe the vaccine he took that doesn't work is actually working, and therefore less inclined to wear a face diaper.

#71 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-01-13 11:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If the state of virginia required visitors to prisons or folks that go into the courthouse to be vaccinated my unvaccinated brother who is a lawyer would be alive today. COVID deaths are just so senseless. When are these clowns going to snap out of it?

#72 | Posted by danS at 2022-01-13 11:43 PM | Reply

So these same folks who just said the government can't force you to wear a mask...

...are just about to say the government CAN force you to carry a pregnancy.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-14 12:38 AM | Reply

Danforth,

For whatever it's worth (and I'm guessing it's not much) I like you. You are channeling the most extreme Snoopy-Level of "equivalence". Please don't do that. You are way too smart to sink down there.

Just do better because you are capable of doing better.

#74 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-14 12:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...are just about to say the government CAN force you to carry a pregnancy."

They are???

#75 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-01-14 08:03 AM | Reply

The rule never had a chance because it was badly written. TonyRoma & I went back and forth about this repeatedly. He insisted it was legal for the Fed, because States issued mandates, and ignored all the problematic aspects of the rule like the arbitrary distinction between 100 and 99 employees in a business with no regard to the type of business nor working environment of those employees.

The rule was doomed to fail but Biden has to look like he's trying, optics over reason.

#76 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-01-14 08:17 AM | Reply

"...are just about to say the government CAN force you to carry a pregnancy."

They are???

I don't see how you can miss this simple truth.

#77 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-14 08:24 AM | Reply

Yes, the statute permits imposing standards for workplace hazards. Covid, in my opinion, is not a just a workplace hazard.

It also, separately and explicitly, in order to combat "illnesses arising out of work situations," authorizes the Secretary of Labor to "set mandatory ... health standards applicable to businesses." It also commands the Secretary of Labor to act on information he gets from the Secretary of HHS to "promulgate" a "health standard."

Have you even read it?

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-14 08:26 AM | Reply

It must be very difficult to carry that much concern upon your shoulders.

It's called being a human being. You wouldn't understand.

#79 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-01-14 08:41 AM | Reply

Mao's a sociopath. You're right. It's not that he wouldn't. He genuinely can't.

#80 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-14 08:45 AM | Reply

authorizes the Secretary of Labor to "set mandatory ... health standards applicable to businesses."

#78 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-01-14 08:26 AM | FLAG:

The rules have to make sense. A company with 100 employees that all work from home does not have the workplace Covid risk of an 8 employee gas station.

A feel good action by the executive branch, doomed to fail, because the Congressional branch won't pass an actual mandate.

#81 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-01-14 08:52 AM | Reply

#81 I agree with you 100%. But that's not the basis on which this ruling was made. SCOTUS said the statute didn't give OSHA the power to issue a vaccine mandate in the first place, regardless of its content. For a bunch of "textualist" conservatives, that is ludicrous on its face.

#82 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-14 09:00 AM | Reply

It was a significant factor on the ruling from the statements of the majority judges before the decision.

#83 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-01-14 09:12 AM | Reply

The majority for only one aspect of the law, and those 4 that kept that interpretation for health care workers are the same four that are right-wing ideologues that throw out all precedent and ignore stare decisis. Two couldn't quite hold that cognitive dissonance when it came to that general welfare...

#84 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-14 09:16 AM | Reply

What they say in oral argument doesn't matter. Go read the ruling. They don't say "OSHA write the mandate correctly." They say "OSHA doesn't have authority to do this."

#85 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-14 09:17 AM | Reply

Many current Republican Supreme Court Justices are not first-rate intellects.

To match many current Republican Congressmen and the late Republican president.

The moral, going back to Sumer and 3500 B.C., is that it is easily possible to become rich and powerful and have no talent.

For as long as lies, selling-out, and exploitation of popular ingnorance are available.

#86 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-14 09:42 AM | Reply

So I will go under the assumption if large businesses want to enact some sort of mandate, it would be allowed?

Simply because, they run the show and they are not forcing you to work there. But if you do, they want safety for all.

#87 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-01-14 09:44 AM | Reply

The rule was doomed to fail but Biden has to look like he's trying, optics over reason.

Agreed.

It's free. They even offered money and trips in some places to get the shot.

Short of men in red suits running around pricking you in the arm, this was a last attempt.

#88 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-01-14 09:46 AM | Reply

They don't say "OSHA write the mandate correctly." They say "OSHA doesn't have authority to do this."

#85 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-01-14 09:17 AM | FLAG:

Also true. Joe Biden said as much in December 2020 and throughout his entire presidential campaign. Congress has to act.

#89 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-01-14 09:48 AM | Reply

DeathSantis spokeswoman gave advice on how health care workers can get around the vaccine mandate!!

www.miamiherald.com

#90 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-01-14 10:10 AM | Reply

Also true.

No, it isn't, as the plain language in the statute indicates.

Joe Biden said as much in December 2020 and throughout his entire presidential campaign.

Joe Biden is a politician, I don't care what he says.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-14 10:40 AM | Reply

"You are channeling"

You are mischaracterizing, again.

For women in Texas, it's already true: Government can't force you to wear a mask, but they CAN force you to carry pregnancy to term.

Address that "channel", why don't you?

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-14 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe Biden is a politician, I don't care what he says.

#91 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-01-14 10:40 AM | FLAG:

You should, because as both candidate and President he has legal teams behind him that thoroughly explored this issue. It was obvious it had zero chance when after months and months of "it's not legal, Congress has to do something" it became "we found new legal theory!" So it goes to court and the answer is... "it's not legal, Congress has to do something".

#93 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-01-14 12:31 PM | Reply

But the vaccinated person is more likely to believe the vaccine he took hat doesn't work is actually working, and therefore less inclined to wear a face diaper.

The vaccine doesn't work?

If you're talking pre-Omicron, please provide some type of link.

#94 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-01-14 02:34 PM | Reply

But the vaccinated person is .......less inclined to wear a face diaper.

Ummm, not sure I agree.

I'm vaccinated and wear a mask just about everywhere I go.

And plenty others are wearing masks, so if you use simply extrapolate most of those people are vaccinated too.

#95 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-01-14 02:39 PM | Reply

and LOL at 'face diaper'.

I think the only ones wearing a face diaper are GOP'ers, spewing it while wearing a mask quite frankly.

#96 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-01-14 02:41 PM | Reply

as both candidate and President he has legal teams behind him that thoroughly explored this issue

He's also a politician who has to make decisions about how to say things and may well have been attempting to project an air of bipartisanship to further his electoral chances. He is not the final word on what the OSHA statute says or means. But since you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the statutory text, i can see why you're cowering behind "but Joe Biden said" instead of making an actual argument.

#97 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-14 02:59 PM | Reply

SCOTUS said the statute didn't give OSHA the power to issue a vaccine mandate in the first place, regardless of its content.

Can you square your opinion with this paragraph of the Court's opinion. I can't.

That is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related toCOVID"19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee's job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible. We do not doubt, for example, that OSHA could regulate researchers who work with the COVID"19 virus. So too could OSHA regulate risks associated with working in particularly crowded or cramped environments. But the danger present in such workplaces differs in both degree and kind from the everyday risk of contracting COVID"19 that all face. OSHA's indiscriminate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction"between occupational risk and risk more generally"and accordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an "occupational safety or health standard." 29 U. S. C. 655(b) (emphasis added).

#98 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-15 12:15 AM | Reply

Whoda thunk! Right-wing activist ideologues, or in the case of ACB, "non-political" religious zealot, pushing to have the Federal Government increase size to properly micro-manage health risks in businesses!

#99 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-15 08:24 AM | Reply

#98 I was referring to a broader mandate, not a targeted one.

Can you square the Court's ruling with the plain language of the OSHA implementing act, which:
(1) states that It was created to address, among other things, "illnesses arising out of work situations;"
(2) contains a stated purpose of fostering "healthful working conditions;"
(3) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to "set mandatory ... health standards applicable to businesses;" and
(4) commands the Secretary of Labor to act on information he gets from the Secretary of HHS to "promulgate" a "health standard."

Thanks!

#100 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-15 09:46 AM | Reply

If the vaccine mandate had been upheld, would that have meant that any employer with 100+ employees would've been forced to terminate any employee who is unvaccinated?

Regardless of their job description or where they work?

What about remote employees? We have more of those than ever in history. All of them would have to be fired?

The religious exemption was still a factor, correct? Other than that, was there any other exception to be made for an employee?

#101 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-15 11:06 AM | Reply

The religious exemption was still a factor, correct?

#101 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-01-15 11:06 AM | FLAG:

Not in the clown world. The looneys no longer care about the freedoms like religion or indigenous peoples right to choose what they put in their bodies.

#102 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-01-15 11:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I'd argue it's more likely to happen, as most vaccinated persons, like most unvaccinated persons, never know they're infected and shedding it."

If I hadn't been tested, I would have been at work all week. I am very infectious with no real obvious symptoms and I have the booster.

#103 | Posted by dibblda at 2022-01-15 01:35 PM | Reply

We do know that with Delta the time you're infectious is much shorter if you are vaccinated. Omicron seems to behave similarly.
We also know the chances of becoming infected are less if you're vaccinated for all variants.
We also know the vast majority of folks that are in hospital now or have recently died are unvaccinated, and these are folks that caught Omicron.
Florida, for instance, Florida's hospitalization rate from COVID climbed nearly 34% over last week. With Omicron the "milder" version, and that's almost all from unvaccinated people. Also Florida's COVID death rate is 66 people a day, and the only strain we really have now is Omicron.

#104 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-16 09:46 AM | Reply

Summarizing #104:
If you're unvaccinated, you're the reason we are still in this mess.

#105 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-16 09:49 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort