Supreme Court halts COVID-19 vaccine rule for US businesses

[cigaretteman]

The Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job.

At the same time, the court is allowing the administration to proceed with a vaccine mandate for most health care workers in the U.S.

ADVERTISING




The court’s orders Thursday during a spike in coronavirus cases was a mixed bag for the administration’s efforts to boost the vaccination rate among Americans.

The court’s conservative majority concluded the administration overstepped its authority by seeking to impose the vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees. More than 80 million people would have been affected.

Supreme Court halts COVID-19 vaccine rule for US businesses

The Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job.

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[THE_DEVIL]

How can it be ok for health workers and not everyone else?

 

[DFSNOLE]

I have no skin in the game since my entire family is fully vaccinated but I hoped it would be upheld just to see how strong the convictions truly were for the anti-vaxxers in my office if it came to them losing their job to support a political ideology. And yes, all of them in my office have not been vaccinated for that reason alone.

 

[TJ8869]

How can it be ok for health workers and not everyone else?

I don't understand why it's okay for either one. If private businesses want to implement a vaccine mandate for their employees, that's their prerogative. But the government shouldn't be ordering businesses to fire unvaccinated employees. Not even health care workers. Many hospitals across the country are experiencing staff shortages, and we're going to exacerbate the problem by firing healthcare workers who risked their lives to save others for more than a year before a vaccine was even available?

I'm fully vaccinated but if I wind up in the hospital for any reason, COVID or otherwise, I'd rather have an unvaccinated doctor or nurse than no doctor or nurse.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Supreme Court shuts down Bidens tyranny.

 

[your_master5]

How can it be ok for health workers and not everyone else?

I think the SC punted because of lack of standing from the states not on the basis of heathcare workers or not

But FREEDOM LIVES!

 

[dgordo]

How can it be ok for health workers and not everyone else?

essentially the court said that HHS has greater authority to make rules for facilities that get medicaid and medicare reimbursements.

 

[torbee]

Good news.

The mandate might have made sense in, say, April of 2021. By now it's just shutting the barn door after the horses escaped and would cause a lot of economic damage.

 

[Rifler]

How can it be ok for health workers and not everyone else?

The federal government has direct ties to health care workers via it's Medicare/Medicaid compensation protocols,.. no such affiliation exists between the federal government and the businesses that were about to be rear ended via OSHA...

 

[franklinman]

How can it be ok for health workers and not everyone else?

Simple, they collect Federal money, medi-care and medi-cade.

 

[ihhawk]

We should all pray for Those 100,00 kids in serious condition with many on ventilators…who may or may not be in the hospital

 

[The Tradition]

We should all pray that OP's mom has a nurse to take care of her at the nursing home.

 

[hawkeye54545]

Good. It was going to be a shit show if the Supreme Court didn't halt this mandate.

 

[IAHawk2011]

I approve of the end result, but this is pretty blatant judicial activism by SCOTUS. Just further proof that conservatives don’t really give a shit about judicial activism, so long as the ruling produces an end result they approve of.

 

[torbee]

I approve of the end result, but this is pretty blatant judicial activism by SCOTUS. Just further proof that conservatives don’t really give a shit about judicial activism, so long as the ruling produces an end result they approve of.

Well, yeah. But isn't that really how the Supreme Court has always been used?

 

[Rifler]

I approve of the end result, but this is pretty blatant judicial activism by SCOTUS. Just further proof that conservatives don’t really give a shit about judicial activism, so long as the ruling produces an end result they approve of.

This is a fair ruling,... The Fed using OSHA for this was an extreme reach.

 

[ihhawk]

This is a fair ruling,... The Fed using OSHA for this was an extreme reach.

I guess people forget that Biden openly said he couldn’t enforce a mandate before he tried this avenue.

 

[Rifler]

I guess people forget that Biden openly said he couldn’t enforce a mandate before he tried this avenue.

Similar to Obama saying that he was the president and not the king,.. Dems know the rules, they just don't want to abide by them.

 

[IAHawk2011]

This is a fair ruling,... The Fed using OSHA for this was an extreme reach.

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

The opinion ignores the text of the statute granting OSHA its emergency powers and instead relies on dicta and judicially-created rules as the basis of its opinion. It’s the literal definition of judicial activism.

Which is fine. I agree with the outcome, just think it’s hilarious that conservatives will refuse to ever acknowledge that an opinion issued by a conservative judge is the result of judicial activism, no matter how glaringly obvious it is.

 

[Finance85]

I approve of the end result, but this is pretty blatant judicial activism by SCOTUS. Just further proof that conservatives don’t really give a shit about judicial activism, so long as the ruling produces an end result they approve of.

Judicial activism? What is your definition of that term?

 

[Finance85]

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

The opinion ignores the text of the statute granting OSHA its emergency powers and instead relies on dicta and judicially-created rules as the basis of its opinion. It’s the literal definition of judicial activism.

Which is fine. I agree with the outcome, just think it’s hilarious that conservatives will refuse to ever acknowledge that an opinion issued by a conservative judge is the result of judicial activism, no matter how glaringly obvious it is.

Perhaps you should read the opinion. Then you will know why they ruled the way they ruled. They actually discuss your position.

 

[Rifler]

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

The opinion ignores the text of the statute granting OSHA its emergency powers and instead relies on dicta and judicially-created rules as the basis of its opinion. It’s the literal definition of judicial activism.

Which is fine. I agree with the outcome, just think it’s hilarious that conservatives will refuse to ever acknowledge that an opinion issued by a conservative judge is the result of judicial activism, no matter how glaringly obvious it is.

So what other vaccinations, pharmaceuticals or therapies does OSHA mandate?,.. thought so,

 

[TJ8869]

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

Do the vaccines protect the employees from exposure to the virus?

 

[The Tradition]

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

The opinion ignores the text of the statute granting OSHA its emergency powers and instead relies on dicta and judicially-created rules as the basis of its opinion. It’s the literal definition of judicial activism.

Which is fine. I agree with the outcome, just think it’s hilarious that conservatives will refuse to ever acknowledge that an opinion issued by a conservative judge is the result of judicial activism, no matter how glaringly obvious it is.

First problem: the 100 employee limit. It's arbitrary and undercuts the alleged "emergency" that OSHA wants to "solve".... it's not a "grave danger" if you have 99 employees???

Second problem: it's overbroad. This isn't like wearing hardhats in a construction zone. This is like making the accountants working in the office of a construction company wear hardhats, too.

Third problem: OSHA has never required someone to put something in their body before. Wear protective equipment? Sure, mandate that all day long. But the needle is a different story.

Fourth problem: No exemptions for medical or religious reasons. If you don't want the shot, you have to get tested once a week like everyone else. That violates existing employment laws, which take precedent over regulatory agency "emergency temporary standards."

 

[hawkosx]

So by definition, SC is an anti vaxxer 😆

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Supreme Court upheld what was taught to some of us in civics class.

The legislative branch makes the laws.

Any questions?

 

[pablow]

Judicial activism? What is your definition of that term?

Judicial activism occurs when a court limits or expands the reach of government and I don't agree with it.

 

[Finance85]

Judicial activism occurs when a court limits or expands the reach of government and I don't agree with it.

The traditional definition is making law instead of interpreting law. In this case the SCOTUS didn't make any law; they said OSHA overstepped their authority. It's a well-reasoned opinion.

 

[NavalHawk]

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

The opinion ignores the text of the statute granting OSHA its emergency powers and instead relies on dicta and judicially-created rules as the basis of its opinion. It’s the literal definition of judicial activism.

Which is fine. I agree with the outcome, just think it’s hilarious that conservatives will refuse to ever acknowledge that an opinion issued by a conservative judge is the result of judicial activism, no matter how glaringly obvious it is.

Wouldn't an emergency due to safety which is what OSHA covers go into effect much quicker than it did if it truly was an emergency. This doesn't fall under judicial activism, it falls under unconstitutional power given to OSHA for an emergency so catastrophic they wait 4 months to implement it.

 

[BioHawk]

So, essentially SCOTUS just said that the United States Constitution is not equipped to deal with a nationwide pandemic and we are all screwed.

/sigh

 

[Clownhater]

I approve of the end result, but this is pretty blatant judicial activism by SCOTUS. Just further proof that conservatives don’t really give a shit about judicial activism, so long as the ruling produces an end result they approve of.

Judicial activism? Ruling on an overreach by the executive branch that 28 state AGs' opposed? That is exactly the Supreme Court's job.

 

[Finance85]

So, essentially SCOTUS just said that the United States Constitution is not equipped to deal with a nationwide pandemic and we are all screwed.

/sigh

No, that's not what they said at all. This is what they said.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

 

[IAHawk2011]

Perhaps you should read the opinion. Then you will know why they ruled the way they ruled. They actually discuss your position.

Yes, they tried to create some non-sensical distinction that COVID isn’t an occupational hazard because you can also catch COVID outside of work. Try talking to one of the workers at the meat packing plants that were overrun with COVID last year and ask them if COVID was an occupational hazard of their job.

This is one of the dangers of Congress granting administrative agencies broad and sweeping power. If they don’t want the administrative agencies to exercise the authority that was given to them, maybe they should be a bit more careful with how they draft the statutory text that grants them that power.

 

[Clownhater]

The left is having a bad, bad week. SCOTUS stomps on Branden's dick on COVID. A democrat decides she can't support ending the filibuster, thereby ending the left's Cheat by Mail scheme. And smoking Joe goes to 33% approval. Great day to be a freedom loving American.

 

[IAHawk2011]

Supreme Court upheld what was taught to some of us in civics class.

The legislative branch makes the laws.

Any questions?

You might want to brush up on some of those old civics classes. Congress passed a law that gives OSHA the power to enact emergency standards when employees are exposed to toxic or harmful substances in the workplace.

 

[dgordo]

 

[franklinman]

Lol. Congress granted OSHA the power to enact emergency standards where “employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful” and where such “emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.”

The opinion ignores the text of the statute granting OSHA its emergency powers and instead relies on dicta and judicially-created rules as the basis of its opinion. It’s the literal definition of judicial activism.

Which is fine. I agree with the outcome, just think it’s hilarious that conservatives will refuse to ever acknowledge that an opinion issued by a conservative judge is the result of judicial activism, no matter how glaringly obvious it is.

Cons only like the rules until they don't agree them.

 

[Finance85]

Yes, they tried to create some non-sensical distinction that COVID isn’t an occupational hazard because you can also catch COVID outside of work. Try talking to one of the workers at the meat packing plants that were overrun with COVID last year and ask them if COVID was an occupational hazard of their job.

This is one of the dangers of Congress granting administrative agencies broad and sweeping power. If they don’t want the administrative agencies to exercise the authority that was given to them, maybe they should be a bit more careful with how they draft the statutory text that grants them that power.

Didn't Biden originally say he didn't have the authority for a mandate? Didn't the WH Chief of Staff admit this was a way to get around that lack of authority?

 

[dgordo]

Pretty good explanation in here

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

I read the opinion and my expert take on it is 6 Is greater than 3.

I think it was the right decision practically speaking but the majority was clearly working backward from a predetermined outcome.