December 22, 2021
“With COVID-19 cases surging across the country, the Supreme Court fast-tracked two disputes over the Biden administration’s efforts to expand vaccinations.”
"In an unusual move, the justices announced on Wednesday night that they will hear oral arguments on Jan. 7 on two federal policies: a vaccine-or-test mandate for workers at large employers, and a vaccine mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding. The cases came to the court last week on an emergency basis, and the formal question in both disputes is whether the government should be allowed to enforce the policies while litigation challenging them continues. But the justices’ views on whether to grant emergency relief will likely be influenced by their views on the merits of the underlying challenges themselves."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Thank God our judicial masters will decide what the correct policy is.
Is this the cafe post?
Apologies, but here's a revealingly contemptuous tweet by Bette Midler:
"He wants us all to be just like his state, West Virginia. Poor, illiterate and strung out."
Not that we had any doubts about the depths of lefty disdain. Still, useful to keep in mind next time they claim to be advocates for the poor and strung out.
Cases might be surging, but deaths aren't. All the Lie-Stream Media can talk about is how many people are getting sick, but they never say how severe the illness is. Omicron gives people a COLD, not the flu. But, the anti-American media wants to panic everybody so their traitorous friends in government can continue dictating segregationist remedies.
The Washington Post's true name is Pravda.
If I were advising a Justice, I would recommend deciding the case on "procedural" or "jurisdictional" grounds. Anyone who says "No" to a vaccine or masking rule, or amy other rule supposed to prevent the spread of Covid, may be blamed for every Covid-related death that occurs after that ruling. But if the "No" is based on some other institution -- the President, CDC, Congress, whoever -- either screwing up the process or sitting on their hands, then "Don't blame me. Blame THEM!"
Biden loses. Not a close case on the merits. Libs will howl and plan to pack the Court. Fuck’em.
Cases might be surging, but are people dying from the Xi variant? No! It’s over. Deal with it Libs. Move on!
Great news
Which way will it go:
A. The Five decide to uphold vaccine mandates so they have precedents to cite when they overturn Roe v. Wade later this year,
B. The Six strike down vaccine mandates on the same basis they struck down the rent moratorium last summer, that Congress should do it not the President.
So how deadly is this surge anyway?
Or are we just responding to the panic swell?
The Great Reset has hit a hurdle in the name of Joe Manchin, so they need SCOTUS to give Biden the authority to create the two tier system.
The OSHA mandate, at least, turns on the question whether Congress has delegated sufficient and specific power to the President/this executive branch agency to support the imposition of the mandate. It does not turn on whether any of the Justices (save perhaps 2 of the liberals) think the mandate is a good idea. The Chevron doctrine of deference to executive branch agencies may be finally dispatched.
By the time the court decides, it won't matter any more. At least for this wave.
2 things I read on the internet this morning that are too good to check:
WV has a lower illiteracy rate than CA or NY.
The correct way to refer to the latest variant is OMGicron.
Could be worse, the Supremes could be looking at the Commerce Clause to answer these mandate questions.
The case will be decided on administrative law principles -- arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, not authorized by statute, etc. -- as in the eviction moratorium cases. No need to get into the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination. There is and will be no incongruence with knocking down the mandates and overturning Roe.
If Jacobson comes up, they will distinguish it, while also casting doubt on its continued viability given 100 years of precedent since then.
Love to see Gorsuch write this. He’s so Scalia like in his straightforward writing.
Kennedy was so much the opposite. All gobbledygook. Read his majority opinion in Obergefell and explain to me in plain English what it means… you can’t.
I’m with David Begley above. Not even a close call here. Resident Biden loses. And yes, libs will wail Bette Midler like and gnash their teeth.
Gorsuch seemed pretty frustrated over the earlier cases about government overreach on the lockdowns. Love to see a government smack down (unanimous one even). We need one these days.
Without it, this SHIT will never end.
Please show me where in the constitution that the government was granted the power to force or coerce invasive medical procedures on the citizens.
"With COVID-19 cases surging..." tells you all you need to know about the writer's POV. And: What Mike of S. said.
David Begley said...
Biden loses. Not a close case on the merits. Libs will howl and plan to pack the Court. Fuck’em.
True- not a close case on the merits. But, will that have anything to do with the final decision?
David Begley: "Biden loses. Not a close case on the merits. Libs will howl and plan to pack the Court. Fuck’em."
I have zero faith in Barrett or Kavanaugh to rule against the government. Their entire judicial history, particularly Barrett's, demonstrates a consistent approach which does not challenge the Government during any declared "emergency", no matter how farcical.
This is the area of law where Barrett has been historically weak and quite deferential.
So, perhaps Barrett and Kavanaugh will rule the way the constitution dictates they should, but I wouldn't count on it, regardless of the merits of this case.
And you know Roberts will be working overtime to get them (Barrett and Kavanaugh) to side with the dems, which apparently is Roberts full time job description these days.
“… vaccine mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive federal funding“
So individual rights are negotiable based on whether or not a business receives government dollars? Surely you must be joking.
This will affect my RN wife because Governor Newsome has dictated that all state healthcare workers must get the booster. Neither she nor I want her to take it.
On the merits, as others have said it's not even close.
And given the decision throwing out the CDC's eviction mandate, there's only one possible reasonable way for teh Court to rule.
So, we're going to get a chance to see how much Roberts, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor value "precedent".
If they follow the "rule" that "you stick with the precedent, even if you don't like it", they will all vote to follow the CDC Mandate decision, and toss these mandates.
If they vote against tossing these mandates, we'll know that they don't actually believe that SCOTUS members should be bound by precedent
Which we'll remember when Dobbs is handed down
West TX Intermediate Crude,
The first one is correct. In fact, CA has the worst illiteracy rate in the country, with NY close behind. NJ also has a higher illiteracy rate than WV, though CT and MA don't. FL and TX come in between NY and NJ, so it's not just a Blue-state phenomenon.
The top states for literacy are, interestingly, mostly Red states in the middle of the country. MT, NE, the Dakotas, IA, KS, MO. Though NH has the fewest illiterates per capita of all.
"Blogger rcocean said...
Thank God our judicial masters will decide what the correct policy is"
Nope. They get to decide if the current "correct" policy is actually Constitutional. That's something the people behind the policy should have considered before trying to implement it. Which is the kind of thing Trump would have been (rightly) criticized for.
When in 2012 the Obamacare decision was on the verge of being released, I was in conference room in the DC office of a large law firm negotiating a contract with 5 or 6 other attorneys. At one of the breaks, we discussed that pending decision and to an attorney, each one of us thought Obamacare was going down, no question.
None of us were newbies - we each had 20 or more years practicing law, some of us had practiced admin law including appeals from federal agency decisions, our educations had spanned from Harvard Law School to State universities, our legal careers ran the gamut from large, national law firms to in-house counsel, and we were all seasoned about gov't and courts and how decisions got made (you might say cynical even). In short, we'd all seen some shit.
Then Roberts decided that the mandated purchase of health insurance was a tax.
Nothing's over until those 9 votes are counted, the opinion is written, and then released. Until that process is completed by that small group of people, we don't know which arguments ultimately had merit.
Post a Comment