Supreme Court halts COVID-19 vaccine rule for US businesses

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You falsely accused me of only recently and only grudgingly acknowledging that vaccines help protect against severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. That's a blatant lie. I have never disputed that fact.

I never said you disputed that fact.

My point was that you disregarded that fact and attacked vax policies because they aren't nearly as good at protecting people from catching omicron - common knowledge - and acting like that's what's important . . . disregarding the clear benefit of vaccines in reducing the risks of hospitalization and death.

And, no, I'm not going to go back and check all your statements. The statements I responded to are as I characterized them. If you want to back off your idiotic "we were promised" position, and agree that vaccinations are still worth mandating because of their hospitalization and mortality befefits, then great. But you haven't done that yet, as far as I can tell.

 

[The Tradition]

First of all, that's a lie.

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

 

[TJ8869]

First of all, that's a lie.

Do explain.

Better yet, just fvck off.

 

[TJ8869]

I never said you disputed that fact.

Now you're lying about lying.

"I love the way you only focused on breakthroughs, and only grudgingly admit that vaccines "help keep you from getting severe symptoms and ending up in the hospital or morgue" under pressure. But, hey, at least you are finally admitting what most of us (and the scientific community) are talking about. So I guess that's an improvement."

You clearly implied that I'm only just now admitting that vaccines help prevent severe illness. That's a blatant lie.

 

[Joes Place]

We were told that everyone had to be vaccinated to protect the vulnerable.

And if they were all vaccinated, there'd easily be enough ICU beds for the vulnerable, right now.

So, what's your point?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Do explain.

Better yet, just fvck off.

You said you're arguing against "government entities ordering private businesses to fire employees who refuse to get vaccinated."

That isn't happening. The mandate required vaccination or testing. And did it really say people had to be fired? I think not, but maybe you can prove that part.

 

[The Tradition]

You said you're arguing against "government entities ordering private businesses to fire employees who refuse to get vaccinated."

That isn't happening. The mandate required vaccination or testing. And did it really say people had to be fired? I think not, but maybe you can prove that part.

The CMS mandate doesn't have a test-out option.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Now you're lying about lying.

"I love the way you only focused on breakthroughs, and only grudgingly admit that vaccines "help keep you from getting severe symptoms and ending up in the hospital or morgue" under pressure. But, hey, at least you are finally admitting what most of us (and the scientific community) are talking about. So I guess that's an improvement."

You clearly implied that I'm only just now admitting that vaccines help prevent severe illness. That's a blatant lie.

You are adding your incorrect inferences to my actual, clear words.

But, yes, it looks to me that you are "finally admitting" because that's exactly what it looks like.

That's on you.

What is your point if it isn't to argue against vaccines? You're blowing all this smoke and it looks exactly like anti-vax BS. So if it isn't anti-vax BS, what is it?

 

[The Tradition]

The CMS mandate doesn't have a test-out option.

And to expand on that thought, outside of a pretty restrictive regulation for medical or religious exemptions, the only option to avoid getting fired is if your job can be performed 100% remotely, without ANY contact with other employees.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

 

[TJ8869]

You are adding your incorrect inferences to my actual, clear words.

But, yes, it looks to me that you are "finally admitting" because that's exactly what it looks like.

That's on you.

You’re full of shit, old man. I’ve been crystal clear on my opinions about the vaccines for a year now.

You made an assumption. That assumption was wrong. That’s on you.

 

[TJ8869]

What is your point if it isn't to argue against vaccines? You're blowing all this smoke and it looks exactly like anti-vax BS. So if it isn't anti-vax BS, what is it?

I’ve explained this more times than I can recall. I think the vaccines are a great thing. They have saved thousands of lives. They help protect people against severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. I’m fully vaccinated and I think everyone who is eligible should get vaccinated.

But I also realize that some people simply aren’t going to get vaccinated and I don’t think people should be losing their jobs and careers for not getting vaccinated.

Guys like you and Huey seem to live in a world of absolutes where you’re either all-in on everything pertaining to vaccines and mandates or you’re an anti-vax lunatic who thinks they’re going to sterilize you and magnetize you and track your movements. For some reason you guys can’t conceive of the idea that some people have nuanced views. You don’t allow at all for shades of gray.

 

[The Tradition]

You don’t allow at all for shades of gray.

Which ironic for liberals considering they want everything else in society to be fluid, and non-binary, and accepting, and tolerant.

 

[Joes Place]

Meanwhile...

 

[Joes Place]

 

[Joes Place]

Yes. You read that correctly.

Supreme Court Justices used Fox News propaganda that is utterly false in preparing their "decisions".

 

[IAHawk2011]

I read the SCOTUS opinion. I don't need other people to explain it to me.

The opinion was well reasoned. It doesn't matter what I think, though. 6 Justices know better than you. The other 3 weren't applying the law, they were looking out for 100,000 hospitalized children.

Lol. You may have read the opinion, but you clearly don’t understand it. This was legitimately one of the most poorly reasoned opinions I have ever read. The majority opinion engages in little to no actual legal analysis. To claim that the dissent wasn’t applying the law, when it is the only opinion that actually discusses the statutory text granting OSHA its emergency powers, is just laughable.

 

[Formerly Rockymtnole]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Yes. You read that correctly.

Supreme Court Justices used Fox News propaganda that is utterly false in preparing their "decisions".

Hmm...according to this blogger I guess I am now considered a “vaccinated anti-vaxxer,” too.

 

[The Tradition]

Lol. You may have read the opinion, but you clearly don’t understand it. This was legitimately one of the most poorly reasoned opinions I have ever read. The majority opinion engages in little to no actual legal analysis. To claim that the dissent wasn’t applying the law, when it is the only opinion that actually discusses the statutory text granting OSHA its emergency powers, is just laughable.

OSHA has attempted to enforce an "Emergency Temporary Standard" for various things 11 times since the OSHA law was enacted. Most of them were either fully or partially invalidated by the courts, or voluntarily withdrawn by OSHA. Furthermore, OSHA hasn't tried to do this since 1983, when the asbestos ETS was struck down.

 

[Joes Place]

Lol. You may have read the opinion, but you clearly don’t understand it. This was legitimately one of the most poorly reasoned opinions I have ever read. The majority opinion engages in little to no actual legal analysis. To claim that the dissent wasn’t applying the law, when it is the only opinion that actually discusses the statutory text granting OSHA its emergency powers, is just laughable.

Not only that: the "majority" cited gobs of false claims/propaganda denying how severe Omicron is.

 

[Joes Place]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

View embedded media

Yes. You read that correctly.

Supreme Court Justices used Fox News propaganda that is utterly false in preparing their "decisions".

The majority’s reasoning is that because the hazard of COVID-19 is present outside the workplace, OSHA exceeded the authority it has to regulate workplace safety.

“COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather,” the unsigned opinion reads. “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.”

This is laughable logic. OSHA regulates many, many hazards that are also present outside the workplace. The fact that you can die in a fire in your apartment is not an argument against regulating fire hazards in factories or offices.

The Culture War Has Warped the Supreme Court’s Judgment

Yesterday’s decision hinges on a new and alarming embrace of the right-wing crusade against vaccination.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Finance85]

Lol. You may have read the opinion, but you clearly don’t understand it. This was legitimately one of the most poorly reasoned opinions I have ever read. The majority opinion engages in little to no actual legal analysis. To claim that the dissent wasn’t applying the law, when it is the only opinion that actually discusses the statutory text granting OSHA its emergency powers, is just laughable.

I understand it. You apparently don't. OSHA regulates dangers in the workplace, not general health. Even the White House Chief of Staff said it wouldn't pass constitutional muster, but would simply be a way to buy time while it went through the courts. You apparently missed all the pages where the law and precedents were cited. Try again.

 

[Joes Place]

I understand it. You apparently don't. OSHA regulates dangers in the workplace, not general health.

Covid is a danger in the workplace.

As experienced by Tyson foods (along with manager who "bet on" which employees would catch it).

 

[IAHawk2011]

I understand it. You apparently don't. OSHA regulates dangers in the workplace, not general health. Even the White House Chief of Staff said it wouldn't pass constitutional muster, but would simply be a way to buy time while it went through the courts. You apparently missed all the pages where the law and precedents were cited. Try again.

The Court’s reasoning makes no sense. Something doesn’t cease being a workplace hazard simply because the hazard also exists outside of the workplace. Again, try telling the workers at the meat packing plants in spring 2020 that COVID wasn’t an occupational hazard of their job - Just a patently absurd argument with zero legal, statutory OR logical basis.

 

[Joes Place]

Man...whatever happened to "acting like a gentleman"...???

 

[Finance85]

Covid is a danger in the workplace.

As experienced by Tyson foods (along with manager who "bet on" which employees would catch it).

COVID is a danger everywhere, and not specific to the workplace.

 

[Joes Place]

COVID is a danger everywhere, and not specific to the workplace.

Yes

This is the point.

So are dozens and dozens of other workplace hazards that OSHA regulates.
Including bloodborne pathogens.

 

[Joes Place]

In other SC News...



👀 👀 👀

 

[The Tradition]

Yes

This is the point.

So are dozens and dozens of other workplace hazards that OSHA regulates.
Including bloodborne pathogens.

There's a difference between protective equipment that you don and doff at the workplace, and an injection.

You don't leave your vaccination at the workplace when you go home at the end of your shift.

 

[your_master5]

There's a difference between protective equipment that you don and doff at the workplace, and an injection.

You don't leave your vaccination at the workplace when you go home at the end of your shift.

Why would we mandate a vaccine that isn't actually a vaccine and doesn't prevent transmission? So strange.

 

[Finance85]

Why would we mandate a vaccine that isn't actually a vaccine and doesn't prevent transmission? So strange.

That would require an admission that it doesn't work as originally advertised, or that it stops working, or that natural immunity is as good of an option.

 

[your_master5]

That would require an admission that it doesn't work as originally advertised, or that it stops working, or that natural immunity is as good of an option.

We can't allow that right

 

[The Tradition]

Israel: Even a 4th shot is ineffective against Omicron.

Israeli trial, world’s first, finds 4th dose ‘not good enough’ against Omicron

Expert at Sheba Medical Center says jab raises COVID antibody levels, but there are ‘still a lot of infections’ among those who received it

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[your_master5]

Israel: Even a 4th shot is ineffective against Omicron.

Israeli trial, world’s first, finds 4th dose ‘not good enough’ against Omicron

Expert at Sheba Medical Center says jab raises COVID antibody levels, but there are ‘still a lot of infections’ among those who received it

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[hawkeye54545]

Some people do not like taking an L and moving on.

 

[Joes Place]

Israel: Even a 4th shot is ineffective against Omicron.

Israeli trial, world’s first, finds 4th dose ‘not good enough’ against Omicron

Expert at Sheba Medical Center says jab raises COVID antibody levels, but there are ‘still a lot of infections’ among those who received it

www.timesofisrael.com

And yet, it's 99% protective against severe disease w/ 3 shots.

Which literally turns it into "the common cold".

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That would require an admission that it doesn't work as originally advertised, or that it stops working, or that natural immunity is as good of an option.

It sounds like you're saying that a vaccine mandate would be OK if we were facing a more deadly variant that the vaccines do a good job against.

Is that a reasonable take?

I think most of us would reject a vaccine mandate to address a relatively minor disease. Or a vaccine mandate to take a relatively ineffective vaccine.

 

[The Tradition]

It sounds like you're saying that a vaccine mandate would be OK if we were facing a more deadly variant that the vaccines do a good job against.

Is that a reasonable take?

I think most of us would reject a vaccine mandate to address a relatively minor disease. Or a vaccine mandate to take a relatively ineffective vaccine.

My take has always been that a vaccine mandate is fine if the vaccine works like it does for things like measles, mumps, smallpox... stopping the virus from spreading.

But this vaccine doesn't do that. Vaccinated people are still getting it and still spreading it.

Any mandate must hinge on the vaccine protecting others. If you're just (sort of) protecting me from my own stupidity, that's not a valid reason.

 

[IAHawk2011]

COVID is a danger everywhere, and not specific to the workplace.

Could you please point out where in the OSH Act it says that a hazard must be specific to the workplace in order to be considered an occupational hazard?

 

[IAHawk2011]

Interesting article from a statutory interpretation and administrative law professor at Georgetown Law. Some pretty sharp criticism for Gorsuch, noting that the arguments in his concurrence lack any textual basis (which is a bit of a problem for a Justice who considers himself a textualist). In fact, many of his arguments take positions that are traditionally opposed by textualists. She concludes the article by noting

“I am not cynical by nature and typically resist partisan, cynical readings of the Court’s statutory cases, but it is hard to view this case as anything other than a sign that at least in high-stakes political cases, the conservative Justices on the modern Roberts Court no longer feel the need to follow a textualist or formalist approach to statutory interpretation even as a pretext to justify reaching their preferred interpretive outcomes.”

Some Brief Thoughts on Gorsuch’s Opinion in NFIB v. OSHA | Election Law Blog

electionlawblog.org