COVID mandates- SCOTUS oral arguments live

[Ethereal]

The Supreme Court's liberal members insisted courts have no business interfering with public health decisions during a pandemic.

How sophomoric. How dishonest. The entire point of the case before them is to determine if the so-called "public health decision" is constitutional or not. The liberal court members are basically hand-waving in an attempt to obscure the constitutional question being brought before them. What a bunch of clowns.

[Peter1469]

I listened to some and it didn't sound promising.

I didn't listen to all of it, but what I did sounded promising.

It is not contested that Congress never gave OSHA the authority through legislation to do what is at issue in the case. However, there is a supposed exception to federal agencies making material regulation not based on legislation. I can explain this if anyone is interested. But for our purposes it appears that the conservative justices and the Chief, Roberts, are not falling for it.

There is also one of several cases that SCOTUS will decide this summer that are considered critical. It is much more important than the other critical cases that make the news- abortion and guns. The case that I am referring too may overturn long standing precedent that gives federal agencies deference when sued over their regulations. If that happens, we may see the biggest power shift away from the federal government back to the States in US modern history. It would put all OSHA regulations into question.

[Peter1469]

Supreme Court Poised To Block Biden’s Workplace Vaccine Mandate.....



The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will block President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for big businesses.
In an emergency hearing, the Court’s conservatives seemed persuaded by trade groups and red states who say vaccine mandates should be crafted by Congress or the states, and not a federal agency. The Biden administration’s rule requires covered businesses to compel vaccinations for their employees or regularly test the unvaccinated.


A victory for the plaintiffs would require the White House to fundamentally rework its pandemic strategy. The employer mandate is central to Biden’s bid to increase vaccinations, but it comes amid mounting frustration with his administration’s approach to the pandemic. Pervasive testing shortages linger a year into his term, and top officials have admitted that the emergence of new variants caught them by surprise.


The Supreme Court's liberal members insisted courts have no business interfering with public health decisions during a pandemic......snip~


Supreme Court Poised To Block Biden’s Workplace Vaccine Mandate (freebeacon.com)


This will be another humiliating defeat for Biden. While Sotmayors Stench will increase along with her bodyodor. Slap it down so we may begin putting the mental $#@!slap down on $#@! biden.

I saw the usual "media" suspects tossing out articles yesterday that it was CRITICAL that SCOTUS not rule against the vax "mandates."

[Peter1469]

The Supreme Court's liberal members insisted courts have no business interfering with public health decisions during a pandemic.

How sophomoric. How dishonest. The entire point of the case before them is to determine if the so-called "public health decision" is constitutional or not. The liberal court members are basically hand-waving in an attempt to obscure the constitutional question being brought before them. What a bunch of clowns.

The issue is whether the federal government has police powers (life, health, safety- legal term of art). It does not outside of federal property, federal lands, and federal special maritime jurisdiction.

That is the crux of the case.

If SCOTUS doesn't strike this mandate down, federalism is indeed dead in the US and the States are no longer sovereign.

[MMC]

I saw the usual "media" suspects tossing out articles yesterday that it was CRITICAL that SCOTUS not rule against the vax "mandates."

Yesterday the leftists Judges validated to the country that they really are not intelligent and cant even put forth an intelligent argument. They tried to wing it.

[Ethereal]

The issue is whether the federal government has police powers (life, health, safety- legal term of art). It does not outside of federal property, federal lands, and federal special maritime jurisdiction.

That is the crux of the case.

If SCOTUS doesn't strike this mandate down, federalism is indeed dead in the US and the States are no longer sovereign.

It's only dead if we submit. If we use our State and local governments to enforce sovereignty, then it lives.

[Skull]

This clear & convincing piece came out a month ago, hopefully SCOTUS or their staff will read it:

https://brownstone.org/articles/covi...jacobson-test/

[Hoosier8]

I didn't listen to all of it, but what I did sounded promising.

It is not contested that Congress never gave OSHA the authority through legislation to do what is at issue in the case. However, there is a supposed exception to federal agencies making material regulation not based on legislation. I can explain this if anyone is interested. But for our purposes it appears that the conservative justices and the Chief, Roberts, are not falling for it.

There is also one of several cases that SCOTUS will decide this summer that are considered critical. It is much more important than the other critical cases that make the news- abortion and guns. The case that I am referring too may overturn long standing precedent that gives federal agencies deference when sued over their regulations. If that happens, we may see the biggest power shift away from the federal government back to the States in US modern history. It would put all OSHA regulations into question.

I did get a kick out of Alito telling one of the government witnesses that she was trying to fit an elephant into a mouse hole.

[Peter1469]

The major-questions doctrine was brought up in oral arguments.

The major-questions doctrine maintains that courts should not defer to agency statutory interpretations when the underlying questions concern “vast economic or political significance.”

There may be lots of gnashing of teeth over this ruling.