Because I would rather they had a decreased chance of being infected and spreading, just like me. We know that Vaccines help with that. Also in the broader sense, I care about the economy, small business owners, and general health and well-being. I know that if they were vaccinated they were playing a part in helping businesses that rely on public participation and on site consumers as part of their business model would benefit. I know that the fewer workers and interruptions to the supply chain would help all of us.
I have a lot of catching up in this thread because I needed a break from following SCOTUS, but will get back into it. As a policy decision, I get the public health merits of vaccine quasi mandates, but from what I've read so far (and I will go back to read this thread to add to my knowledge), it's hard to constitutionally justify the federalism encroachment, the overbroad delegation of powers to OSHA in this action, and violations to the APA comment period with an emergency justification that was delayed for one year.
Actually the delayed emergency justification isn't an unreasonable argument. I disagree with some who say thatt mandating vaccines in and of itself is unconstitutional.
I agree with the ruling. I thought it was a stretch to pursuit public health policy via OSHA. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/01/...ghts-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers/ Congress may have given OSHA the power to regulate workplace dangers, the court explained, but it “has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.” The OSHA case OSHA issued the vaccine-or-test mandate at the center of National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor in November. It required all employers with 100 or more employees – roughly two-thirds of the private sector – to compel those employees to either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or to be tested weekly and wear masks at work. The government expected the mandate to cover 84 million workers. Businesses, states, and nonprofits went to court to challenge the mandate, and on Thursday the Supreme Court granted their request to put it on hold. Describing the mandate as a “significant encroachment into the lives — and health — of a vast number of employees,” the court emphasized that Congress must speak clearly if it intends to give a federal agency the authority to “exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” In this case, the court continued, Congress did not. It gave the Department of Labor the power to establish safety standards for the workplace, rather than “broad public health measures.” Although COVID-19 “is a risk that occurs in many workplaces,” the court acknowledged, it isn’t a risk that workers encounter simply by virtue of being at work – COVID-19 spreads virtually anywhere that people gather. “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,” the court concluded. And indeed, the court noted, the fact that OSHA has never adopted a similar regulation is a “telling indication” that the vaccine-or-test mandate exceeds the agency’s power. ... The dissenters tackled the same question that was at the heart of a concurring opinion filed by Justice Neil Gorsuch (and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito): Who should decide how to respond to the pandemic? For Gorsuch, the “answer is clear”: the states and Congress. The dissenters reached a very different conclusion: OSHA, with its expertise in workplace safety and its status as a politically accountable government agency, is better suited to make decisions about how to protect workers from COVID-19 than “a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces, and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes.” The vaccine-or-test mandate will remain on hold while the challenges to its legality continue in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
I don't think the Court even touched on vaccine mandate as being unconstitutional. In fact, their ruling suggests that it would be. If Congress wrote OSHA to allow the Dept of Labor to regulate for "broad public health measure", the Court would have allowed it.
It's not worth debating something this stupid IMO. What the public at large think matter not - if we are about to allow what the mass think as definition of science, we might as well go back to the dark age (which a large portion of our populace is doing). Vaccine "instructs" your immune systems to attack pathogen. That's it. Someone with a basic lack of understanding would assume it provides 100% immunity. That's simply impossible given we are not all the same.
I can't even imagine what would justify gorusch's refusal to wear a mask after chief jsutice robert's request based on a fellow justice's health condition. Some people are simply broken.
A negative test result is not definitive in showing that someone is not infected or infectious. A person can be infectious up to 48 hours before showing any symptoms. False negatives are very possible in the early stages of infection. Gorsuch is not legally required to wear a mask, but I do think it shows that he's a terrible person and shows great disrespect to his colleagues.
Are you suggesting the supreme court justices are tested daily? If you are, that would be news since gorsuch nor anyone from his offices has stated that. Gorusch hasn't warn a mask previously. btw, to answer your question... if he sat next to someone with underlying health issues and was asked to wear a mask, I would expect that he would. Unless, he wanted to be a dick to make a stupid political statement. Which appears to be the case.
The republican supreme court rules again in favor of republicans and corruption... SCOTUS seems open to Cruz case but passes on bigger bite at campaign finance law Some conservatives had hoped to use Sen. Ted Cruz’s lawsuit over the relatively obscure debt-repayment limit as a means to totally eradicate a landmark law that added significant new guardrails to the nation’s campaign finance system. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/scotus-ted-cruz-campaign-finance-law-527370
The Supreme Court denies Trump's bid to block release of records to Jan. 6 panel The vote was 8 to 1, with Clarence Thomas being the sole dissenter The court's order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden. In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided. "Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump's claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court's decision," the court said in its order.
Big NO to Trump on blocking release of paper to the Jan 6th committee. The claim of privilege wouldn't even stand if Trump was still the President. But former President should have the power to claim privilege, though it's not absolute and diminishes with time. In all in, Trump's claim stands on no good ground (BS as usual), but future former President should have that protection if it has good grounds (such as against a future "bad" Congress and a "bad" President that want to release document for political purposes). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf "The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprece- dented and raise serious and substantial concerns." "Because the Court of Appeals concluded that Presi- dent Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision" "A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privi- lege for communications that occurred during his Presi- dency, even if the current Pr esident does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications." "To be clear, to say that a former President can invoke the privilege for Presidential communications that occurred during his Presidency does not mean that the privilege is absolute or cannot be overcome. The tests set forth in Nixon, 418 U. S., at 713, and Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F. 2d 725, 731 (CADC 1974) (en banc), may apply to a former Presi- dent’s privilege claim as they do to a current President’s privilege claim. Moreover, it could be argued that the strength of a privilege claim should diminish to some extent as the years pass after a former President’s term in office."
I wouldn't say soon. The USSC has agreed to hear the case but they've heard over Affirmative Action cases before and while they've pared some of it back haven't done away with it. Further Harvard is a private institution and as such as much more latitude to make admissions decisions. Also the case won't be heard until next term so it will still be more than a year before a decision is made.
USSC flexing its politic and allowing AL congressional map that violated the Voting Rights Act to likely stand for the 2022 election. 5-4 votes with Roberts joining the other 3 liberal members in dissent. The 5 members of the court in an unsigned decision said it was too late to make changes now (and repeatedly stated it was NOT based on the merit of the case). The closer: "I take no position at this time on the ultimate merits of the parties’ underlying legal dispute. And I need not do so until the Court receives full briefing, holds oral argument, and engages in our usual extensive internal deliberations" - 21A375 Merrill v. Milligan (02/07/2022) (supremecourt.gov) Supreme Court, in 5-4 Vote, Restores Alabama’s Congressional Voting Map - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Supreme Court, in 5-4 Vote, Restores Alabama’s Congressional Voting Map A special three-judge court had ordered lawmakers to redraw the lines, saying Black voters “have less opportunity” than other Alabamians to elect their favored candidates. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a voting map for congressional elections in Alabama that a lower court had said violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters to elect their chosen candidates. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent. The Supreme Court’s brief order, which included no reasoning, was provisional, staying a lower court’s decision while the case moves forward. The justices said they would hear Alabama’s appeal of the lower court’s ruling, but they did not say when. If the court follows its usual practices, it will schedule arguments for the fall, making it likely that the 2022 election is conducted using the challenged map.
