Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Today's Slatesplanation provides a detailed, thorough examination of legal reason used by the Supreme Court to strike down Biden's vaccine mandate. Quick summary: There was no legal reason. They made one up   (slate.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court of the United States, John G. Roberts, United States, Justices Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS's unsigned majority opinion rests, health care workers, SCOTUS's decision, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

2577 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jan 2022 at 9:35 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



79 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-01-14 9:23:49 AM  
In reference to this SCOTUS, only 3/5 of the justices ruled against using OSHA in this matter.
 
2022-01-14 9:37:39 AM  
but the Supreme Court is not political or anything
 
2022-01-14 9:38:11 AM  
Im gonna go out on a long ass limb here and guess that the Soo-preem has a vaccine mandate and if these dumb motherf*ckers worked at Costco they'd sure as sh*it be voting for it.

Every law in this country is set up to do one thing: Protect the rich.
 
2022-01-14 9:38:54 AM  
activist judges out of control
 
2022-01-14 9:39:36 AM  
Yep.

"Because we want to" is perfectly legal when the Supreme Court does it.

History books out front shoulda told ya.
 
2022-01-14 9:39:57 AM  
The Republican justices specifically cited the financial interests of corporate persons over the living interests of actual persons as a reason to stay the rule.  If that's not activism from the bench, I don't know what is.
 
2022-01-14 9:40:45 AM  
memesmonkey.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-14 9:43:35 AM  
SCROTUS doesn't want to kill everyone, just labor, women, and leave children unprotected.

During the former regime, the theatrical/movie unions had to come up with safety protocols because OSHA was out with the flu.   Production slowed but never stopped.  And professional tv studios and movie sets were very strict places to work.*    Except in New Mexico, where union rules were broken.
 
2022-01-14 9:47:20 AM  

Glorious Golden Ass: The Republican justices specifically cited the financial interests of corporate persons over the living interests of actual persons as a reason to stay the rule.  If that's not activism from the bench, I don't know what is.


The GQP was never against activism from the bench. They were against activism from the bench that they didn't like.

This is exactly what this SCOTUS was created to do - be activists for corporate, religious and GQP interests.
 
2022-01-14 9:47:24 AM  
I downloaded the decision yesterday, but haven't had time to read it all the way through. There were a bunch of questions in the meeting I was in when the news broke. I got to the actual language of the order, and if I read.it right, they stayed the ETS and remanded the case back to the 6th Circuit.

Like I said, I haven't read it all the way through and I am far from being a lawyer
 
2022-01-14 9:50:15 AM  
What do you do when SCOTUS pisses in your face and tells you it's raining?

You cannot have it politicized like this, this is an announcement to the nation that SCOTUS is no longer legitimate (though most of us already figured that out as of the Trump appointment proceedings).  Without a legitimate federal supreme court, the law itself becomes illegitimate.

You want to pull out one of the critical pillars holding up your society?  Because this is how you pull out one of the critical pillars holding up your society.
 
2022-01-14 9:50:57 AM  
The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of "grave danger" envisioned by the statute, and "falls outside OSHA's sphere of expertise."

Does this mean that the only danger OSHA is "supposed" to cover is stuff that happens exclusively at work? Because I'm pretty sure that air quality would still count if the pollution blew in from accross the street.
 
2022-01-14 9:54:58 AM  

Unobtanium: I downloaded the decision yesterday, but haven't had time to read it all the way through. There were a bunch of questions in the meeting I was in when the news broke. I got to the actual language of the order, and if I read.it right, they stayed the ETS and remanded the case back to the 6th Circuit.

Like I said, I haven't read it all the way through and I am far from being a lawyer


Yes, but they basically told the 6th circuit what to do (strike it down).
 
2022-01-14 9:55:54 AM  
Where are they?

Where are all the Farkers who repeatedly told us that Jacobson v. Massachusetts meant that this was settled laws, and that SCOTUS would never ignore settled law, so it was obvious on the face that the mandate was constitutional.

Where are they? Why are they not here admitting that they were wrong, that they do not understand how law works in the United States, and that SCOTUS can ignore precedent as weill. Why are they not understanding that a precedent supporting a state law would not apply to a federal regulation.

Where are you, Law Farkers Who Know So Much? And when will you understand that law doesn't matter when the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't want it to matter?
 
2022-01-14 9:56:23 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-14 9:57:21 AM  
Party before country.
 
2022-01-14 9:57:43 AM  
Any legitimacy and neutrality the Supreme Court had flew out the window with Gorsuch. What we're seeing now is just Death Twitches.
 
2022-01-14 9:57:49 AM  
I listened to portions of the oral arguments, and it was pretty clear that OSHA was never specifically delegated the authority for a nationwide vaccination mandate.  OSHA does have the authority for targeted mandates, which is why the mandate for medical facilities was allowed to stand.
 
2022-01-14 9:58:51 AM  

DerAppie: The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of "grave danger" envisioned by the statute, and "falls outside OSHA's sphere of expertise."

Does this mean that the only danger OSHA is "supposed" to cover is stuff that happens exclusively at work? Because I'm pretty sure that air quality would still count if the pollution blew in from accross the street.


Nope. This means someone can set up a business downwind from a mass polluter and osha can't do anything about it. Which is exactly the precedent they intended to set. And the EPA can't regulate anything inside that business because they aren't the ones creating the pollution. It's a great win for business and slimeball landowners.
 
2022-01-14 9:59:08 AM  
"WHy is BIdeN sUCh A FAiLurE HE caN't EvEn FIX cOVid FOr US?!?!?"
 
2022-01-14 9:59:29 AM  

dothemath: Every law in this country is set up to do one thing: Protect the rich.


And their property.
 
2022-01-14 10:00:21 AM  

Unsung_Hero: You cannot have it politicized like this, this is an announcement to the nation that SCOTUS is no longer legitimate


The Supreme Court has been like this since Marbury v. Madison, which they also made up.
 
2022-01-14 10:00:28 AM  

Unobtanium: I downloaded the decision yesterday, but haven't had time to read it all the way through. There were a bunch of questions in the meeting I was in when the news broke. I got to the actual language of the order, and if I read.it right, they stayed the ETS and remanded the case back to the 6th Circuit.


I'm a bit confused. Most of the coverage has just talked about how the vaccine/test requirement was struck down for businesses with 100+ employees. I heard some details on NPR though, and so far nowhere else, that made me wonder if OSHA can take another shot at this.

They said that SCOTUS objected to the requirement being solely based on how many people a business employs, but that SCOTUS left the door open for a requirement based on a business having a higher risk situation, such as a manufacturing floor where lots of people work closely together, or even an office with many employees together. That suggests to me that OSHA could come back with a more specific requirement that probably wouldn't effect as many people, but could still include quite a few million.

But I've not heard this anywhere else yet. I don't know if it's considered politically unlikely or coverage has just left it out or what.
 
2022-01-14 10:01:41 AM  

DerAppie: The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of "grave danger" envisioned by the statute, and "falls outside OSHA's sphere of expertise."

Does this mean that the only danger OSHA is "supposed" to cover is stuff that happens exclusively at work? Because I'm pretty sure that air quality would still count if the pollution blew in from accross the street.


Actually the ruling actually gives pollution in the general atmosphere as another example of something that wouldn't be covered (if it blew in from across the street and wasn't generated at the workplace).

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

(pages 6 and 7)

The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating "work-related dangers." Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID-19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID- 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. 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. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life-simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock-would significantly expand OSHA's regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
 
2022-01-14 10:04:39 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: I listened to portions of the oral arguments, and it was pretty clear that OSHA was never specifically delegated the authority for a nationwide vaccination mandate.  OSHA does have the authority for targeted mandates, which is why the mandate for medical facilities was allowed to stand.


If Congress is delegating an authority that granular, they're just passing a law. By the same token, OSHA was never specifically NOT delegated the authority for a vaccine-or-test mandate. That's kind of why it went before the Court.

The point of giving emergency authority is to give someone the necessary discretion to act quickly in an emergency. And when this rule came before Congress via the Congressional Review Act, they approved it.
 
2022-01-14 10:07:40 AM  

moothemagiccow: And when this rule came before Congress via the Congressional Review Act, they approved it.


They didn't disapprove it.  That is legally different from actively approving it.
 
2022-01-14 10:08:25 AM  
The administration specifically described it's approach as an end-around to the law, stretching an agency rule far beyond what was ever imagined by Congress at the time.

Tyrannical crap like this is what you get when a party just barely in power wants to do big things and makes no attempt to reach across the table and do things right.

BTW, has Slate ever tried to explain why Justice Sotomayor was so ignorant of the real Covid statistics? 100k children in the hospital at once rather than fewer than 3500?
 
2022-01-14 10:08:38 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: Where are they?

Where are all the Farkers who repeatedly told us that Jacobson v. Massachusetts meant that this was settled laws, and that SCOTUS would never ignore settled law, so it was obvious on the face that the mandate was constitutional.

Where are they? Why are they not here admitting that they were wrong, that they do not understand how law works in the United States, and that SCOTUS can ignore precedent as weill. Why are they not understanding that a precedent supporting a state law would not apply to a federal regulation.

Where are you, Law Farkers Who Know So Much? And when will you understand that law doesn't matter when the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't want it to matter?


Oh please. Most legal experts were wrong on this because they tried to look at the law objectively. They should have predicted this ruling based on the SCOTUS being a far right wing dominated body that doesn't give a flying fark about stare decisis (and yes, past Supreme Courts have placed much weight on that doctrine even though they can ignore it if they really want to). The far right wing justices are there to push far right wing policy, and they have done so yet again.
 
2022-01-14 10:08:56 AM  
The usual nonsense from Slate. OSHA is a workplace safety agency, not a public health agency, as the justices said. Moreover, the federal government generally can't go around telling businesses what to do. The fed can hold the "power of the purse" over businesses if they are sufficiently connected to federal programs, like the healthcare industry, for which the justices allowed the "mandate" to stand.

/The most pathetic performance was by Justice Sotomayor, who said it wasn't a mandate with an exception, but an exception with an exception that was a mandate, apparently not realizing that the decision of the majority still applied if that were true.
 
2022-01-14 10:11:10 AM  

DerAppie: The majority invented a distinction between hazards that occur solely in the workplace and hazards that occur in and out of the workplace. Because the pandemic exists outside the workplace, it is not the kind of "grave danger" envisioned by the statute, and "falls outside OSHA's sphere of expertise."

Does this mean that the only danger OSHA is "supposed" to cover is stuff that happens exclusively at work? Because I'm pretty sure that air quality would still count if the pollution blew in from accross the street.


Sorry this case has nothing to do with air quality, and neither does OSHA.
 
2022-01-14 10:11:49 AM  
Which part of "Supreme" do you not get? They are the Burrito Supreme of the judicial branch of US government, which is the Taco Bell of the Illuminati, which is the Yum! Brands of world governments.
 
2022-01-14 10:12:22 AM  
Hey subby, judges do this thing where they render decision they call it a judgment, it's basically the name of their position. OSHA really didn't have the scope to make the ETS as they did. Heck, if they wanted to push the "emergency" part of it, why didn't it take immediate effect?
 
2022-01-14 10:16:57 AM  

Geotpf: moothemagiccow: And when this rule came before Congress via the Congressional Review Act, they approved it.

They didn't disapprove it.  That is legally different from actively approving it.


It's not. Listen to yourself.

When the Court says "Congress said" it is lying and it always has been. When the Court says "Congress said" it means "our interpretation of the law is what the members of Congress actually wanted" which is patently absurd. It's more absurd when the rule literally came before Congress, and Congress said "OK." Or, in your silly world, Congress said "Not no"

What is "legally different" is entirely up to the whims of the majority of judges on the Supreme Court. If they say the CRA matters, it matters. If they don't like what Congress did with the CRA, well then the CRA doesn't count. If they say schools and sporting events are not workplaces, despite employing millions of people, well, they're just not workplaces.
 
2022-01-14 10:17:12 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: Where are they?

Where are all the Farkers who repeatedly told us that Jacobson v. Massachusetts meant that this was settled laws, and that SCOTUS would never ignore settled law, so it was obvious on the face that the mandate was constitutional.

Where are they? Why are they not here admitting that they were wrong, that they do not understand how law works in the United States, and that SCOTUS can ignore precedent as weill. Why are they not understanding that a precedent supporting a state law would not apply to a federal regulation.

Where are you, Law Farkers Who Know So Much? And when will you understand that law doesn't matter when the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't want it to matter?


The Supremes can do whatever the fark they want to do.  If they followed precedence, IMHO, they should have approved it.  However, Jacobson v. Massachusetts is a bad cite here, because that applied to state and local governments, not the Feds.  Our constitution is designed that, in theory, state and local governments have powers that the Feds don't, this is apparently one example.

IMHO, because people certainly do spread Covid via workplaces, and the OSHA regulates safety rules in workplaces, then it was constitutional.  The Supremes are saying that since Covid spreads everywhere, you can't single out workplaces en masse without a specific increased risk from the design of the workplace (the ruling does cut out some exceptions, like if a workplace is particularly crowded).  Their reasoning was part on the constitution and part on "Congress has to pass a more specific law to do this".

Note the Supremes can rule whatever the fark the want to and it becomes law.  It doesn't need to make sense.  If the Supremes decided that the third amendment required everybody to wear a pizza as a hat, you'd better invest in some pepperoni head gear.
 
2022-01-14 10:18:16 AM  

WastrelWay: The usual nonsense from Slate. OSHA is a workplace safety agency, not a public health agency, as the justices said. Moreover, the federal government generally can't go around telling businesses what to do.


cdn.vox-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-14 10:19:04 AM  
1) I like how they left the majority decision unsigned.  That means they knew it was BS and didn't want to actually put their names on it.

2) While I have mixed feelings on the government telling private business what to do in the case of forcing their employees to get vaccinated or be tested daily or be fired, at the same time I know that I have an issue with government (see Florida) telling private business that they cannot enforce their own vaccine mandate, separate from Biden's.
 
2022-01-14 10:22:07 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: Glorious Golden Ass: The Republican justices specifically cited the financial interests of corporate persons over the living interests of actual persons as a reason to stay the rule.  If that's not activism from the bench, I don't know what is.

The GQP was never against activism from the bench. They were against activism from the bench that they didn't like.

This is exactly what this SCOTUS was created to do - be activists for corporate, religious and GQP interests.


Lochner Era 2.0
 
2022-01-14 10:22:40 AM  

moothemagiccow: Geotpf: moothemagiccow: And when this rule came before Congress via the Congressional Review Act, they approved it.

They didn't disapprove it.  That is legally different from actively approving it.

It's not. Listen to yourself.

When the Court says "Congress said" it is lying and it always has been. When the Court says "Congress said" it means "our interpretation of the law is what the members of Congress actually wanted" which is patently absurd. It's more absurd when the rule literally came before Congress, and Congress said "OK." Or, in your silly world, Congress said "Not no"

What is "legally different" is entirely up to the whims of the majority of judges on the Supreme Court. If they say the CRA matters, it matters. If they don't like what Congress did with the CRA, well then the CRA doesn't count. If they say schools and sporting events are not workplaces, despite employing millions of people, well, they're just not workplaces.


The CRA makes it so Congress can strike down a administration ruling.  This is different from the constitution saying that they have to approve anything the administration does by giving them to power to do such (the ruling says that the Covid rule is beyond the powers Congress gave the administration when it created OSHA).  The fact that Congress did use the CRA means nothing in regards to whether or not they, when they created OSHA, meant for it to be used regarding diseases during a pandemic.

That is, Congress needs to give active approval, not just not actively disapproving.
 
2022-01-14 10:23:22 AM  
Classic conservative legal practice.  The outcome comes first, then you cast around for anything and everything you can find that supports it.  Can't find anything that supports your desired outcome?  No problem!  Pull something out of your ass, then attack the question and the messenger when you're called out on it.
 
2022-01-14 10:23:45 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: Where are they?

Where are all the Farkers who repeatedly told us that Jacobson v. Massachusetts meant that this was settled laws, and that SCOTUS would never ignore settled law, so it was obvious on the face that the mandate was constitutional.

Where are they? Why are they not here admitting that they were wrong, that they do not understand how law works in the United States, and that SCOTUS can ignore precedent as weill. Why are they not understanding that a precedent supporting a state law would not apply to a federal regulation.

Where are you, Law Farkers Who Know So Much? And when will you understand that law doesn't matter when the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't want it to matter?


Are you referring to yourself?

Jacobson v Massachusetts is not precedence because it is not the same. Mass. has police powers that OSHA does not.  Jacobson is quite frankly an irrelevant argument.

What law did the Supreme Court ignore exactly? The decision points out that only one instance of this emergency ruling has survived a challenge. Every other instance failed because it was an overreach.  This goes back to hiding elephants in mouse holes. They believe OSHA was not written to give it this amount of power without clear Congressional exercise of its power and not simply a delegation.
 
2022-01-14 10:25:17 AM  

Not_Todd: Tyrannical crap like this


i.gifer.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-14 10:27:51 AM  

patrick767: I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: Where are they?

Where are all the Farkers who repeatedly told us that Jacobson v. Massachusetts meant that this was settled laws, and that SCOTUS would never ignore settled law, so it was obvious on the face that the mandate was constitutional.

Where are they? Why are they not here admitting that they were wrong, that they do not understand how law works in the United States, and that SCOTUS can ignore precedent as weill. Why are they not understanding that a precedent supporting a state law would not apply to a federal regulation.

Where are you, Law Farkers Who Know So Much? And when will you understand that law doesn't matter when the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't want it to matter?

Oh please. Most legal experts were wrong on this because they tried to look at the law objectively. They should have predicted this ruling based on the SCOTUS being a far right wing dominated body that doesn't give a flying fark about stare decisis (and yes, past Supreme Courts have placed much weight on that doctrine even though they can ignore it if they really want to). The far right wing justices are there to push far right wing policy, and they have done so yet again.


While this is 100% accurate, there's no value whatsoever to predicting a Supreme Court decision. It's just for fun. I predicted Bostock, no one's calling me up asking for Lottery numbers.

The decisions come out when they come out and say what they say. Knowing that any sooner doesn't have any real benefit. You follow the law until it's temporarily enjoined or it changes.
 
2022-01-14 10:28:42 AM  
The problem with the reasoning is that it's basically flawed.

Have you ever stood on a chair to change a lightbulb? I think most people have probably done something slightly dangerous like that. OSHA would never allow that in a workplace.

OSHA constantly regulates "everyday risks" in ways that are above what takes place outside of the workplace. Do most of you have a fire cabinet in your homes or garages? No? Well, when I worked in factories, our flammable chemicals were stored in sealed metal cabinets designed specifically to prevent fire. WD40 is sold directly to consumers, as is nail polish remover. Most of what we had in those cabinets you can buy yourself.

The reasoning that OSHA doesn't cover a hazard in the workplace because it exists elsewhere is idiocy and anyone who's used a ladder at work would know that. Anyone who knows anything about OSHA knows that. The Supreme Court knows that. They know what they're doing.
 
2022-01-14 10:29:45 AM  
One more anti-life decision from the partisan Republican activists on the Supreme Court.
 
2022-01-14 10:31:02 AM  

Geotpf: The fact that Congress did use the CRA means nothing in regards to whether or not they, when they created OSHA, meant for it to be used regarding diseases during a pandemic.


The test of whether Congress meant something 70 years ago versus whether Congress is fine with it now is completely arbitrary.

You can guarantee that Congress did not intend "sex" to mean "including gender identity or sexual orientation" when it passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 but Gorsuch did not give a single shiat about that when he approved it in Bostock.
 
2022-01-14 10:33:08 AM  
Well, sure there was a succinct reason.

He's with a different party. That's reason enough to obstruct, ignore, and generally make an ass of the american judicial system.
 
2022-01-14 10:34:02 AM  
A vaccine mandate at a federal level would be unconstitutional.  The job of the SCOTUS is to decide whether or not something is constitutional.  Seems like the correct outcome was reached.

Despite that moron Sotomayor pulling completely fake, BS numbers out of her arse.
 
2022-01-14 10:34:30 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: I listened to portions of the oral arguments, and it was pretty clear that OSHA was never specifically delegated the authority for a nationwide vaccination mandate.  OSHA does have the authority for targeted mandates, which is why the mandate for medical facilities was allowed to stand.


The second one wasn't an OSHA regulation. It was a financial mandate for recipients of Federal funding from Medicare or Medicaid.
 
2022-01-14 10:36:36 AM  

Petey the Headless Parakeet: The job of the SCOTUS is to decide whether or not something is constitutional.


Not exclusively, and that's not even what happened here.
 
2022-01-14 10:39:42 AM  

WastrelWay: The most pathetic performance was by Justice Sotomayor, who said it wasn't a mandate with an exception, but an exception with an exception that was a mandate, apparently not realizing that the decision of the majority still applied if that were true.


Basically everything Democrats say of Justice Thomas (other than calling him an Uncle Tom) is true of her.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.