I just watched his speech. That was not unifying. I am vaccinated and I refuse to be mad at others for not choosing that route. I dont think his approach to shame people into the vaccine is smart. He questioned the vaccine when it came out and just recently said he wouldn't mandate it. I understand things change but goodness gracious. This may be a political play to get the focus off his Afghanistan gaffe. He needs to be more unifying and stop whispering.
actually, at the federal level, OSHA has a standard which limits employee exposure to carbon monoxide, one of the products from the combustion of tobacco. effectively, this has evolved to no smoking in work offices a GOP president, Bush Sr, had this federall law passed, The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) which requires employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs so, OT, did you cried foul then, the Gov taking away freedom?
Geezus...you say there and apologized for Trump for 4 years...no one believes that you give 2 craps for Biden. DD
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/10/admission-against-interest-white-house-chief-of-staff/ Admission Against Interest: White House Chief of Staff Admits Vaccine Mandate is a “Work Around” the Constitutional Objections September 10, 2021 In the law, it is called an admission against interest or an out-of-court statement by a party that, when uttered, is against the party’s pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interests. In politics, it is called just dumb. White House chief of staff Ronald Klain offered a doozy this week when he admitted that the announced use of the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a vaccine mandate was a mere “work around” of the constitutional limit imposed on the federal government. The problem is that the thing being “worked around” is the Constitution. Courts will now be asked to ignore the admission and uphold a self-admitted evasion of constitutional protections. Notably, before inauguration, Klain publicly assured the public that Biden would that, on “his first day in office, I will issue a nationwide masking mandate, requiring that people wear masks where the federal authority extends and then urging governors and other local officials to impose mask mandates in their states.” That statement was then walked back due to the lack of legal authority to issue such a mandate. Klain retweeted MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, who posted, “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.” The “work around” was needed because, as some of us have previously during both the Trump and Biden Administration, the federal government does not have clear authority to impose public health mandates. Authority for such mandates has traditionally been recognized within state authority. Make no mistake about it. This is a clever move to use the OSHA as the vehicle for the mandate to avoid the federalism issues of a direct mandate. President Joe Biden has been ping ponging on the issue for over a year in first suggesting that he could impose a national mandate and then admitting that he probably could not. Ironically, this move comes on the same day that Attorney General Merrick Garland denounced the “clever” use of the Texas abortion law to make it more difficult to challenge. Judging from the praise for Garland, it appears that such work arounds are noble when done for the right cause. The question is whether this clever work around will in fact work. It might, but there are ample grounds from challenge. Under this interpretation OSHA could impose a federal mandate for any measure that impacts workers, including public health measures not directly linked to a given workplace or job. That may be more of a sticker shock for some on the federal bench, including some justices. The move is unnecessary and therefore reckless. There are already challenges to the law which the Justice Department could join as amicus. It would then not have to risk the creation of additional losses in court after the impressive litany of losses of the Biden Administration. This was another filing that followed a public call from the President. It is again politics driving litigation by the Justice Department. The media covered such pressure extensively during the Trump Administration and legal experts objected that the Trump White House was attacking the independence of the Justice Department and other agencies. There is little attention to his pattern that extends from immigration to debt relief to the eviction moratorium. The retweet by Klain will not be determinative in this case but it will be heavily referenced by challengers. He was saying the quiet part out loud. However, the real question is why the Administration would bring a case that is unnecessary to litigate a theory that is at best novel and untested. For a department known for its reluctance to bring such test cases to avoid negative precedent, the declaratory judgment says more about the political than legal priorities of the Administration.
https://reason.com/2021/09/10/where-does-biden-get-the-authority-to-mandate-vaccination/ Where Does Biden Get the Authority To Mandate Vaccination? by Walter Olson 9.10.2021 1:35 PM President Joe Biden decreed on Thursday that private companies with more than 100 workers would have to make it a condition of employment for them to get vaccinated—either that, or take weekly tests for the virus. You may wonder: On what authority can Biden order this? The White House is relying on the regulatory authority of the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency dating back to 1971, and in particular its seldom-used emergency powers. Some backers of Biden's action seem to think waving in OSHA's general direction, together with citing COVID-19's high death toll, is all the answer needed to questions about legality. But it isn't. Courts have frequently struck down OSHA actions, especially when the agency has tried to issue the type of peremptory decree it calls an emergency temporary standard (ETS). A word is in order about the two ways OSHA adopts rules. The standard, accepted way is to put them through the process known as "notice and comment," building a record that it is hoped will result in more rational standards and, whether or not it does that, prepares the way for judicial review by, for example, putting the agency on the record against major objections as to its rationale for the rule. The emergency process bypasses these protections for the regulated and for judicial review as a check. True, the process as foreseen is one in which OSHA is supposed to start developing a rule the regular way, which would at some point catch it up with the need to base its rules on a reasoned public justification. But that comes afterward. In the meantime it can use the excuse of emergency to regulate first and explain later. To use the emergency decree power, according to the agency's website, "OSHA must determine that workers are in grave danger" and that an emergency standard "is needed to protect them." That is a vague and open-ended standard, but even so it opens up one set of possible challenges. Is a test-or-vax mandate that applies even to employees who work from home, or who have already contracted the virus and recovered, truly needed to protect other workers from "grave danger"? Even when OSHA makes rules through its conventional process, there are real constitutional questions about the limits of its authority. In 2008, Harvard University law professor Cass Sunstein, who went on to serve as former President Barack Obama's regulatory chief, published an articleentitled "Is OSHA Unconstitutional?" He addresses the problem of "nondelegation" arising from Congress' having seemed to bestow on the agency such wide powers, akin to those of a legislature, with so few checks. The Supreme Court has backed off since then on trying to breathe life into nondelegation doctrine as such, but Sunstein suggests that constitutional principle should at least call for close judicial review that would hold the agency to standards of rationality, consistency, and legality. Another possible basis for challenge arises from the limits of the federal government's authority over interstate commerce, an area where, as in the Affordable Care Act individual mandate case, the Supreme Court's thinking has evolved since OSHA was founded. Yet another, which might rest on a statutory or constitutional basis, could arise from the decree's expected lack of provision for religious accommodation. Challenges on these grounds might or might not prevail. But if someone tells you that what Biden announced Thursday rests only on OSHA's accepted and uncontroversial legal powers, they're scrubbing away a whole lot of legal complication. And that's all aside from the big legal fact here: Courts have applied tougher scrutiny to OSHA's emergency decrees than to its garden-variety rules. That is why a recently updated Congressional Research Service report on OSHA's ETS authority as applied to COVID-19 notes that the agency "has rarely used this authority in the past—not since the courts struck down its ETS on asbestos in 1983." (It did issue an ETS for healthcare workers and COVID-19 in June.) As attorney Michael Schearer points out, of the nine times OSHA used its emergency power until this summer, three went unchallenged, but of the six that went to court, only one instance was fully upheld. All the others were stayed or vacated, in one instance partially. In other words, the courts have by no means been pushovers for OSHA ETSs. And this makes sense. Ordinary OSHA rule making builds a detailed record and rationale, including time for objections, which allows judges to hold the agency to some semblance of legality. Emergency powers bypass that. Were courts to adopt a posture of abject deference to claims of emergency, they'd leave OSHA in a position to order around the nation by diktat. In short, don't be surprised when the new Biden vaccine mandate ends up in court. Should it reach the Supreme Court, it will be amid fresh memories of the eviction moratorium debacle, in which a majority of justices clearly signaled that it would be unconstitutional for the Biden administration to renew the expiring Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decree, and the White House went ahead and did so anyway. Slapping that down took less than a month. A lot of the blame here lies with past Congresses, which saw fit to arm this agency with grossly overbroad powers. How about we make it an agenda item for a future Congress to rein in OSHA's purported emergency powers to rule the workplace by decree?
from the syntax I'm not sure what you're asking here . . . but here's this: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/1...ghts-about-the-osha-employer-vaccine-mandate/ excerpt: . . . there will invariably be constitutional challenges. I do not think Congress could directly require people to get vaccinated. But the OSHA rule accomplishes that same task, indirectly, through regulations of private employers. Is this regulation within Congress's commerce powers? To answer that question, we have to define the relevant activity. Does this rule regulate conduct in the workplace? If so, that activity would be economic in nature. Or does this rule regulate a person's decision not to get vaccinated? The latter decision sounds an awful lot like a decision not to purchase health insurance. Remember, in NFIB v. Sebelius the "broccoli" horrible involved buying broccoli, not forcing people to eat broccoli. We were told the latter mandate would implicate the Due Process Clause. I would wager that forcing someone to eat a vegetable is less intrusive than forcing someone to receive a vaccine. I hope the ACLU agrees. Even if this authority is within Congress's commerce powers, it may go beyond Congress's Necessary and Proper powers. In other words, it is not a proper use of federal power to require 100 million Americans to become vaccinated. The federal government is not simply banning guns in school zones, or prohibiting domestic violence, or growing mar1juana. This rule require forcible injection of substances in the bodies–a power never before exercised by Congress. "Bodily autonomy" interest are at stake. Moreover, there is a strong federalism angle. Such health and safety laws are traditionally within the state police power. And the federal policy preempts of all state laws which prohibit vaccine mandates. more at the link
Biden’s Authority to Mandate Vaccines Stems From Law Protecting Workers From ‘Grave Dangers’ White House officials believe the law is a legitimate and legal way to combat the pandemic, though they acknowledge it has never been used to require vaccines. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/us/politics/biden-vaccines.html excerpt: WASHINGTON — President Biden’s far-reaching assertion of presidential authority to require vaccines for 80 million American workers relies on a first-of-its-kind application of a 51-year-old law that grants the federal government the power to protect employees from “grave dangers” at the workplace. White House officials believe the emergency authority provided by Congress under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a legitimate and legal way to combat the coronavirus pandemic. But they acknowledge that the law’s emergency provisions, which were employed in previous decades to protect workers from asbestos and other industrial dangers, have never been used to require a vaccine. The novelty of the effort is at the heart of legal threats from Republican lawmakers, governors, pundits and others, many of whom vowed on Thursday to challenge the president’s use of the workplace rules. Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, called the Mr. Biden’s actions “utterly lawless.” Gov. Brian Kemp, Republican of Georgia, said the move “is blatantly unlawful, and Georgia will not stand for it.” In a fund-raising email sent on Friday, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a Republican who has issued antimask orders, wrote, “Joe Biden has declared war on constitutional government, the rule of law, and the jobs and livelihoods of millions of Americans.” But top aides to the president do not appear to be shaken by what they say was an expected response from those quarters. At a middle school in Washington on Friday morning, Mr. Biden responded to threats of lawsuits from his adversaries. “Have at it,” he said. And experts said the administration appeared to be on strong legal ground because it was relying on existing authority granted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by the legislative branch and supported by decades of judicial rulings. “The OSHA Act gives employees a right to a safe and healthy workplace,” said Robert I. Field, a law professor at Drexel University. “Having a vaccinated work force is an essential component of having a safe and healthy workplace. Being exposed to a potentially deadly virus is neither safe nor healthy. So OSHA would have that authority.” more at the link
We have gone through two years of hoping people do the right thing and get vaccinated. Should we wait three years? Ten? Its no longer sufficient. People refusing to get vaccinated deserve to be called out on it. And the fact you even consider it "shaming " reflects your real values.
We all b**** about it when it doesn't fit what we want. While all Presidents including Biden took existing pathways and twisting them to what they want to the Troposphere, Trump took it to the Exosphere. Political hacks like Turley pretend to be neutral through his law expertise didn't mind so much what Trump did during his term. @Invisible Fan you had a similar post in the other thread.
Where's Trump? That's right, he don't give a **** about America or the people who died in his native NYC.
trump and 9/11... a history of self-serving lies. He used the appearance to criticize President Biden and promote his 2024 presidential run. Honoring 9/11...
Dude you don't know how much self ownage this is when you actually hear the grandiose narcissistic BS that came out of his mouth in reference to the 20 year anniversary of 9/11. All you have is some stupid out of context snapshot of Biden when we can show you Trump doing fellatio of his own dick talking about how he actually won the election and bragging about himself. The cops who cheer for him are no better. They are also part of a right wing cult.
Trump Talked as Holyfield Got Pummeled. Just Another Day in Boxing’s Absurd Summer. Of course it was a circus — the kind that makes sense in boxing these days. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/12/sports/boxing-trump-triller-belfort-holyfield.html?smid=url-share excerpt: Triller did not reveal how much it had paid Trump, though Ryan Kavanaugh, whose company owns a majority stake in the app, said he was negotiating with Barack Obama to be a commentator on a future boxing match. That was a clear bid for publicity, and perhaps a bipartisan hedge in advance of Saturday’s fights, which featured such sights as the former U.F.C. fighter Tito Ortiz — a vocal Trump supporter who resigned from the city council of Huntington Beach, Calif., after drawing ire for his anti-mask and anti-vaccination stances — walking to the ring waving a “thin blue line” flag. Ortiz was knocked out a minute into the first round by another former U.F.C. fighter, Anderson Silva. If the thought of Obama commentating on a similar spectacle does not seem plausible, well, a spokeswoman for the Obama Foundation agreed. “There is no offer and no negotiation,” a spokeswoman, Courtney Williams, wrote in an email. more at the link
Quinnipiac has Biden at 42% https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3819 September 14, 2021 Biden Underwater On Job Approval And Handling Of Key Issues, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Than 6 In 10 Americans Believe U.S. Troops Will Return To Afghanistan Americans' views have dimmed on the way President Joe Biden is handling his job as president, with 42 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of adults released today. This is the first time Biden's job approval has dropped into negative territory since taking office. In early August, 46 percent of Americans approved and 43 percent disapproved of the way Biden was handling his job. In today's poll, Democrats approve 88 - 7 percent, while Republicans disapprove 91 - 7 percent and independents disapprove 52 - 34 percent. Biden's numbers on his handling of the response to the coronavirus are mixed, with 48 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving. This compares to August, when he received a 53 - 40 percent approval rating on his handling of the coronavirus. Americans give him a negative score on his handling of foreign policy, 34 - 59 percent. In August, 42 percent approved and 44 percent disapproved of his handling of foreign policy. They also give Biden a negative score on his handling of his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, with 40 percent approving and 55 percent disapproving. On his handling of the economy, Biden receives a negative 42 - 52 percent rating. In August, it was a slightly negative 43 - 48 percent rating. On his handling of climate change, Americans are divided, as 42 percent approve and 45 percent disapprove. This compares to a positive 48 - 35 percent approval rating in August. "If there ever was a honeymoon for President Biden, it is clearly over. This is, with few exceptions, a poll full of troubling negatives... from overall job approval, to foreign policy, to the economy," said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy. more at the link
