US Supreme Court BLOCKS vaccine mandates

[Kayaker]

View attachment 32335

The old man said there were 750 million new cases the previous day. ?

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

cnsnews.com

 

[tankasnowgod]

Biden still has influence even without the OSHA mandate.

Yep, the same Freedom of Speech influence that every living man and woman has, and some select clones/CGI holograms/Rubber Mask Wearing actors.

However, since you and your employer are basically contracting with each other, those are the two parties with the biggest impact on each other.

 

[Ledo]

Nothing about forcing an injection on someone to hold their job makes sense. Neither do you make any sense. It seems like you’re an apologist for evil, intentional or not.

Exactly.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Do you think this decision also casts a serious doubt over the legality of the local vaccine mandates? I mean, if the ruling establishes that OSHA was never endowed with power (by Congress) to push vaccine mandates on private employers and their workers, it seems to me that it is even less legal for local governments to force private entities to demand sensitive (and non-public) health information from their clients (so, even less legal "power" over them than in an employer->employee situation) as a basis of deciding on allowing/banning entry on the premises. If we use the same criteria from the ruling and apply it to the local level, private entities such as bars, gyms, restaurants, etc do not typically receive state funds, so the governor/mayor should have no power to force vaccine mandates on them. Actually, come to think of it, they may justify the mandates for all local businesses/organizations using the argument that those entities have received financial help during the pandemic, but I think the majority of companies in the services/entertainment sector did NOT get state help, so this should still leave a decent amount of "untainted" business that could be exempt from the mandates. Moreover, since the local mandates are currently blanket, it prevents a non-vaxxed person from seeking/using alternatives, which is the epitome of total "discrimination based on health status", expressly forbidden by federal law. I can't wait to see the mental acrobatics the "left" will do perform to explain why localized fascism is perfectly OK despite this ruling.
Anyways, good ruling and I suspect this is just the beginning, especially in regards to challenges filed against the local mandates.

I think you largely hit on it, the president could be used to by restaurants in cities like NY to challenge any sort of "Vaccine Passport," but if a business got a PPP loan, for example, they may not have the standing to challenge it.

Of course, there are other ways, too. In N Out in San Francisco refused to check for customer's vaccine cards, as they saw that as being an arm of the state. Haven't heard much about that, since. And it could also depend on who such laws were meant to "protect." There is a bar in Los Angeles, the Tiki Ti, that remained a smoking bar openly and legally for decades after the "No Smoking in Restaurants/Bars" ordinance was passed. The reason was that it was owner operated, having no employees, and the ordinance was specifically to protect employees, not customers. Obviously, customers could easily go to another bar or restaurant (or none at all) if they objected to being around smoke.

 

[haidut]

The reason was that it was owner operated, having no employees, and the ordinance was specifically to protect employees, not customers.

I think that is a great loophole If the local mandates somehow remain, watch how those establishments start giving say 0.000000001% equity to each of their staff and then lay them off, but then those people come back and work as owners-operators for tips only. The majority owner(s) then have a shareholder meeting and pass a company bylaw saying each one of those minority owners get an hourly bonus (for every hours worked only) exactly equal to their hourly earnings when they were employees. As long as there are no W2 or 1099 employees, this could work (assuming they did not take PPP or other state relief "loans" in the past).

 

[tankasnowgod]

Nothing about forcing an injection on someone to hold their job makes sense. Neither do you make any sense. It seems like you’re an apologist for evil, intentional or not.

Ridiculous. I think it is more that you don't understand the decision, or the Ashwander Rules. The Supreme Court has long held

"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

This is what the two ruling were based on, and just because you don't understand that does not mean that I am "an apologist for evil."

The court blocked the private mandate, but allowed "Biden's vaccine mandate for healthcare employees at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to stay."

So, it's not even necessarily for ALL healthcare workers, but for healthcare workers who work at facilities receiving Federal Funds.

If you familiarize yourself with the Ashwander Rules, it becomes very clear why they decided what they decided in this particular case, even if you don't like it.

And to cap it off, I would suggest your statement itself doesn't make much sense. Many jobs required vaccinations prior to December 2019, especially jobs within healthcare.

CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law

CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.

www.cdc.gov

State vaccination laws include vaccination requirements for children in public and private schools and daycare settings, college/university students, and healthcare workers and patients in certain facilities.

 

[LA]

Do I understand correctly that healthcare workers in about half the states (the ones that had rejected the mandate) are now under the mandate? Seems like more of a defeat than a victory.

We need to keep our spirits up and ignore the depressing aspects that are causing more sickness than this (possible) seasonal flu/cold/virus plandemic. We need to see what develops and what the conservatives decide to do with this ruling.

 

[LA]

Great news. It’s a good start.

yes it is very hopeful

 

[zwez]

Ridiculous. I think it is more that you don't understand the decision, or the Ashwander Rules. The Supreme Court has long held

"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

This is what the two ruling were based on, and just because you don't understand that does not mean that I am "an apologist for evil."

The court blocked the private mandate, but allowed "Biden's vaccine mandate for healthcare employees at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to stay."

So, it's not even necessarily for ALL healthcare workers, but for healthcare workers who work at facilities receiving Federal Funds.

If you familiarize yourself with the Ashwander Rules, it becomes very clear why they decided what they decided in this particular case, even if you don't like it.

And to cap it off, I would suggest your statement itself doesn't make much sense. Many jobs required vaccinations prior to December 2019, especially jobs within healthcare.

CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law

CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.

www.cdc.gov

I think what you don’t understand is that the founders did not care about the King’s rules the same way we don’t care about the rules of the people you’re apologizing for. Nothing but nonsense comes out of your diseased brain.

 

[Donttreadonme]

Mandates still abound. Try going to college without being vaccinated. M any employers still require it illegally

 

[Mito]

Anyways, good ruling and I suspect this is just the beginning, especially in regards to challenges filed against the local mandates.

This seems like an interesting strategy

 

[Surfari]

I think you largely hit on it, the president could be used to by restaurants in cities like NY to challenge any sort of "Vaccine Passport," but if a business got a PPP loan, for example, they may not have the standing to challenge it.

Of course, there are other ways, too. In N Out in San Francisco refused to check for customer's vaccine cards, as they saw that as being an arm of the state. Haven't heard much about that, since. And it could also depend on who such laws were meant to "protect." There is a bar in Los Angeles, the Tiki Ti, that remained a smoking bar openly and legally for decades after the "No Smoking in Restaurants/Bars" ordinance was passed. The reason was that it was owner operated, having no employees, and the ordinance was specifically to protect employees, not customers. Obviously, customers could easily go to another bar or restaurant (or none at all) if they objected to being around smoke.

In-N-Out in San Fran switched to drive-thru.

Fri Oct 29, 2021 - 2:56 pm EDT
(LifeSiteNews) — Holding firm in its refusal to “become the vaccination police,” popular California-based burger joint In-N-Out has opted to offer drive-thru and take-out service only for all its restaurants in one Bay Area county rather than force employees to check patrons’ COVID-19 vaccination status.

 

[LA]

Supreme Court hands Biden COVID vax mandate defeat, sparking fury from liberals

Liberals across the Twitter sphere reacted with anger, Republican attacks, and calls for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court following the nation’s highest court’s decision to block President Biden’s vaccine mandate on businesses with over 100 employees.

www.foxnews.com

?

*liberals* are always the ones who want to force 'whatever' on everyone else
Here is another example:

Justice Sotomayor Exaggerated the Number of Severe COVID-19 Cases Among Children

"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators," said the justice, wrongly.

Robby Soave | 1.7.2022 2:36 PM

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday on whether to prevent the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for private workplaces from going into effect. As expected, the right-leaning justices seemed skeptical that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had the authority to craft such a regulation without new input from Congress, whereas the three liberal justices appeared to believe the mandate was necessary given the public health emergency posed by COVID-19.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was particularly adamant that the surging omicron variant wave represents a real crisis. In discussing the issue, she significantly exaggerated the threat of COVID-19 to children.

"Omicron is as deadly as delta and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did," she said. "The numbers—look at the hospitalization rates going up. We have more infected people today than we did a year ago in January. We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators."

If by serious condition, Sotomayor meant hospitalized, then her claim is false. There are not 100,000 children currently hospitalized with COVID-19. In fact, if you tallied up all the children admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 since August 2020, you would still not find 100,000 of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hospitals have admitted about 82,000 COVID-19 patients under the age of 18 in that time period. The current seven-day average for this age group is 766 hospitalizations.

The overwhelming majority of children who contract COVID-19 experience only mild disease. The disease's age skew is so great that even unvaccinated young people are at less risk than elderly people who are vaccinated. Most kids admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 have underlying health conditions—particularly obesity.

Sotomayor's behavior suggests she is perhaps the most COVID-cautious judge. She is the only one of the nine who always wears her mask inside the courtroom, and she opted to participate in today's oral arguments virtually, from her private chambers.

That's her prerogative, of course. But if she is trying to justify President Joe Biden's far-reaching and unprecedented vaccine mandate on the grounds that the disease is uniquely dangerous to children, then she should demonstrate a more accurate recitation of the statistics.

[01]Justice Sotomayor Exaggerated the Number of Severe COVID-19 Cases Among Children

 

[LA]

Do you think this decision also casts a serious doubt over the legality of the local vaccine mandates? I mean, if the ruling establishes that OSHA was never endowed with power (by Congress) to push vaccine mandates on private employers and their workers, it seems to me that it is even less legal for local governments to force private entities to demand sensitive (and non-public) health information from their clients (so, even less legal "power" over them than in an employer->employee situation) as a basis of deciding on allowing/banning entry on the premises.

Yes - hope so!!!

 

[tankasnowgod]

I think what you don’t understand is that the founders did not care about the King’s rules the same way we don’t care about the rules of the people you’re apologizing for. Nothing but nonsense comes out of your diseased brain.

And you don't seem to understand that the founders didn't set up a Welfare state. In case you weren't aware, Medicare and Medicaid were set up under the "New Deal," and not under Washington. Bringing up the founders in relation to an institution that accepts those benefits is silly.

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of civics, or the history of government in this country. And to make excuses for your lack of knowledge, you hurl insults at others. Seeing as that's the case, I think it's best I leave this here.

 

[zwez]

And you don't seem to understand that the founders didn't set up a Welfare state. In case you weren't aware, Medicare and Medicaid were set up under the "New Deal," and not under Washington. Bringing up the founders in relation to an institution that accepts those benefits is silly.

You don't seem to have a basic understanding of civics, or the history of government in this country. And to make excuses for your lack of knowledge, you hurl insults at others. Seeing as that's the case, I think it's best I leave this here.

Listen clown, the time for your games and the rules that you created for them is past. You can continue to ramble about your fantasy world where men create rules that justify forced injections, and continue to be an apologist for those men, because there are other games that people play where men hunt other men.

 

[Old Irenaeus]

The ruling about healthcare workers actually makes sense, whether you like it or not. Notice this part-





It's very simple. Don't want to be subject to Federal Government rules? Don't take Federal Government money. Or "benefits and privileges."

Of course, there could be other challenges to these "Healthcare Worker" mandates. I still haven't seen healthcare workers/facilities challenge the mandate based on the principles from Doe vs. Rumsfeld, for example.

Fair enough, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch didn't see it as being that simple. As Thomas points out in the dissent, this isn't requiring people to wash their hands or don PPE. This is requiring them to be injected with a potentially life altering ( or ending) drug. Sure there are strings attached to the welfare money, and these workers are entering into a contract with their employers etc. But if COVID is not even real, as you like to point out, then it's not unreasonable to question the legitimacy of this"safety" requirement even if the government has the authority to set conditions for receiving Medicare Medicaid money.

 

[Doc Sandoz]

*liberals* are always the ones who want to force 'whatever' on everyone else

It really pains me when people like Sotomayer are referred to as "liberals." Traditionally liberals believe in maximum freedom for the individual limited only by the equivalent freedom of others as opposed to the conservative belief in subjection to traditional authority such as the king or the church. The Sotomayors of the world are more accurately called by the other name they claim, "progressive." Progressives believe in using the coercive power of the state to ensure all people are made safe and equal according to plans envisioned by a "benevolent" intellectual elite. They are in fact collectivists who believe the good of the many trumps the good of the few and so are willing to sacrifice the liberty and life of the few for what they believe to be the good of the collective. "Your body, Our choice," would thus be their motto in the present case.

 

[PxD]

Great news! ??

There’s also a lesson here…if you don’t want the Feds yanking your leash around, don’t take their dollars.

 

[Fred]

I just discovered that you can't type "forced vaccination" in YouTube comments - it gets auto-deleted. So, forced vaccination is probably planned to happen sooner rather than later. Laws are on the books in many states already, like in "safe haven" Florida:
"If the individual poses a danger to the public health, the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual."