Supreme Court blocks Biden's Covid requirements for businesses

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration's rule requiring larger businesses to ensure that workers receive the Covid vaccine or wear masks and get tested on a weekly basis.

But the court said a separate mandate requiring vaccinations for an estimated 20 million health care workers can be enforced.

The workplace rule, announced last fall by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, required companies with 100 or more employees to ensure that their workers either get vaccinated or wear masks and show negative Covid test results at least once a week.

The rule would have covered nearly 80 million American workers, and OSHA estimated it would save over 6,500 lives and prevent 250,000 hospitalizations in the next six months.

"Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly," the court's conservative majority said. "Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category."

 

Link

[acidhead]

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No mandates?

SEE THE INHERENT HOMOPHOBIA OF THE TRUMP REGIEME!!! 

[+OverSword]

53 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No mandates?

SEE THE INHERENT HOMOPHOBIA OF THE TRUMP REGIEME!!! 

HELP HELP you're being repressed!!!

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

 

I'm not sure trump should criticize others for not knowing what is or is not constitutional.   

Donald, thank you for your service, now go away. 

[Agent0range]

I completely agree with this.  If a business or company wants to mandate it, I support them.  If a business or company doesn't want to mandate it.  I support them.  

[acidhead]

[Gromdor]

23 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I completely agree with this.  If a business or company wants to mandate it, I support them.  If a business or company doesn't want to mandate it.  I support them.  

Yeah, I was kinda leaning that way too.  Turning OSHA into an agency for protecting safety at work into a tool to try to protect the health of the whole country seemed a bit of a stretch.

The factory I am currently contracting at is considering vaccine mandates even though the governor is considering making madates illegal just to try an combat the crazy number of people calling in sick (over 90).  I laughed because it is a bit reactionary.   Vaccine doesn't help people who are already infected.

[Myles]

32 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

I completely agree with this.  If a business or company wants to mandate it, I support them.  If a business or company doesn't want to mandate it.  I support them.  

I mostly support this because it would hurt companies.    Staffing issues is a big problem right now for many companies.  This would have made these companies lose many employees just adding to the woes.  

[Gromdor]

14 minutes ago, Myles said:

I mostly support this because it would hurt companies.    Staffing issues is a big problem right now for many companies.  This would have made these companies lose many employees just adding to the woes.  

My experience seems to be the opposite of this.  Companies are panicking because of Covid absenteeism and are willing to go to extremes to try and stop it- including mandating vaccines for their employees.  But I think the ship has already sailed on their part.

[+DieChecker]

I thought the SCOTUS would find it as a State level of enforcement, rather the Federal. Thats been the historic record up till now. 

Wonder if that will also apply to the Federal Contractors mandate when it shows up at SCOTUS?

Probably "Voting Rights" legislation will go the same way. Its a State by State regulation historically, and Federal control of all voting will be called overreach.

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

My experience seems to be the opposite of this.  Companies are panicking because of Covid absenteeism and are willing to go to extremes to try and stop it- including mandating vaccines for their employees.  But I think the ship has already sailed on their part.

I think having 3% of your employees out on Covid is not as bad as 10% walking out, or being laid off, due to not getting vaxxed. 

If anything, Companies should be looking for ways to keep the unvaxxed while offering what ever protections the other employees want too.

Edited January 14, 2022 by DieChecker

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link

Great thread, I am glad they did that!

[Doug1066]

We're a little bit late getting this in front of the Supreme Court.  My suspicion is that the pandemic will run its course this spring and summer with or without mandates.  However that may be, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its lack of knowledge of covid.

I'm wondering what if this pandemic was ebola instead of covid.  Would the Supreme Curt's lack of scientific knowledge doom us to a near-extinction level event?

Doug

[+DieChecker]

Again, I think we need an "eyeroll" to the emoji reaction button. Hyperbole posts don't deserve sad, or confused, or laughing...

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

We're a little bit late getting this in front of the Supreme Court.  My suspicion is that the pandemic will run its course this spring and summer with or without mandates.  However that may be, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its lack of knowledge of covid.

I'm wondering what if this pandemic was ebola instead of covid.  Would the Supreme Curt's lack of scientific knowledge doom us to a near-extinction level event?

Doug

I don't think it has a thing to do with science, but rather LAW, and how it can, and should, be applied. 

Sounds to me like an appeal to emotion... "Will somebody think of the children!!!"

Edited January 14, 2022 by DieChecker

[Doug1066]

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I don't think it has a thing to do with science, but rather LAW, and how it can, and should, be applied. 

Would the Supreme Court's practice of LAW doom us to a near-extinction level event?
Doug

[+DieChecker]

19 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Would the Supreme Court's practice of LAW doom us to a near-extinction level event?
Doug

The onus is on the Congress to fashion Law, and the SC to determine its legality.

Why has Congress not passed a law? Because they can't. Even the Democrats dont want that hanging on them at election time.

Its not the SC dooming anyone. Its the various states. And I'd hardly call what is happening a "Doom". Near a million dead over two years is about a third of one percent. And 80% of them over 60 WITH a severe secondary condition. 

That sounds harsh, but I think altering 200+ years of legal precedent to save, what did the article say.... 8000 lives, is over my limit.

Edited January 14, 2022 by DieChecker

[Agent0range]

48 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I thought the SCOTUS would find it as a State level of enforcement, rather the Federal. Thats been the historic record up till now. 

Wonder if that will also apply to the Federal Contractors mandate when it shows up at SCOTUS?

Probably "Voting Rights" legislation will go the same way. Its a State by State regulation historically, and Federal control of all voting will be called overreach.

It should apply to federal contractors.  There is no reason the government, acting as an employer, can enact their own mandate.  The federal employee mandate stood, so should the contractors.

[Doug1066]

26 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The onus is on the Congress to fashion Law, and the SC to determine its legality.

Why has Congress not passed a law? Because they can't. Even the Democrats dont want that hanging on them at election time.

Its not the SC dooming anyone. Its the various states. And I'd hardly call what is happening a "Doom". Near a million dead over two years is about a third of one percent. And 80% of them over 60 WITH a severe secondary condition. 

That sounds harsh, but I think altering 200+ years of legal precedent to save, what did the article say.... 8000 lives, is over my limit.

From what I've seen of Congress during this epidemic, we need not count on them to pass needed laws for some hypothetical ebola outbreak.  They can't even handle real disasters -0 like climate change and covid.

Doug

[+DieChecker]

19 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

It should apply to federal contractors.  There is no reason the government, acting as an employer, can enact their own mandate.  The federal employee mandate stood, so should the contractors.

I can see that. But someone is still going to sue and it will likely go to the SC.

Imagine if Trump gets reelected and mandates no Federal worker, or contractor, may have an abortion. 

Would that be trampling on individual health rights? 

[+DieChecker]

11 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

From what I've seen of Congress during this epidemic, we need not count on them to pass needed laws for some hypothetical ebola outbreak.  They can't even handle real disasters -0 like climate change and covid.

Doug

I'd totally agree on Climate Change, we need to act on that quick. Either by social legislation, or by engineering projects, its going to need to get done.

 

[spartan max2]

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

We're a little bit late getting this in front of the Supreme Court.  My suspicion is that the pandemic will run its course this spring and summer with or without mandates.  However that may be, the Supreme Court has demonstrated its lack of knowledge of covid.

I'm wondering what if this pandemic was ebola instead of covid.  Would the Supreme Curt's lack of scientific knowledge doom us to a near-extinction level event?

Doug

The supreme court are suppose to make their decisions based on their knowledge of the Constitution. 

If the pandemic had a 30%-50% deathrate than mandates would be irrelevant because people would be terrified to death and would voluntary do everything they could to avoid it

Edited January 14, 2022 by spartan max2

[Agent0range]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I can see that. But someone is still going to sue and it will likely go to the SC.

Imagine if Trump gets reelected and mandates no Federal worker, or contractor, may have an abortion. 

Would that be trampling on individual health rights? 

Not the same thing.  An abortion doesn't affect the readiness of the federal work force.  If a contractor in Afghanistan isn't vaccinated and creates a chain of events that gets a couple hundred Soldiers sick.  You got a serious problem.  If a contractor gets pregnant in Afghanistan and has an abortion...you're down a single contractor.

[Doug1066]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'd totally agree on Climate Change, we need to act on that quick. Either by social legislation, or by engineering projects, its going to need to get done.

 

Step 1:  Stop polluting the air.

Doug