Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Can anyone explain how the Supreme Court parsed their two decisions?

Set aside the vax/anti-vax mandate/anti-mandate mask/anti-mask rhetoric. Plenty of other threads for that. Let's focus on the simple question of how OSHA, in which Congress has passed a law instructing them to assure that major employers have safe work sites, CANNOT mandate COVID precautions, but NIH, which Congress authorized to buy health services through Medicare/Medicaid, CAN mandate vaccines & masks. What distinction are they drawing? Or were they just looking to punt with a mixed decision? Particularly since we're only talking about a stay until the lower courts resolve the actual lawsuits involving the OSHA Mandate.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Northwest · M

I really can't. I understand why they would have quashed both, on the same basis, but not only one.

The majority opinion was unsigned. It said the administration likely didn’t have the unilateral power to impose a mandate that employers ensure their workers were vaccinated. The decision was 6-3.

It reflects the court's conservative majority's skepticism of federal regulatory power exercised without specific and explicit congressional authorization. But this applies to healthcare workers as well.

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

congress. dont much like personal choices and personal responsibility huh?

maybe the constitution should be tattood to the foreheads of those who run for office and SWARE to uphold it..

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Nothing to contribute to the actual question being asked?

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

@dancingtongue I answered it perfectly.. you just dont like the answer..
Growing trend of elected official swearing to uphold the constitution.. them immediately set about to bypass/sub-divert/destroy it..

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Your original response only talked about Congress and politicians. Didn't refer to the Supreme Court.

MistyCee

I haven't read the opinions, but I can imagine lots of distinctions and expanding OSHA is really a lot more politically sensitive then healthcare or other government contractors.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MistyCee Ah, but these are strict constructionists on the Supreme Court going only on interpretation of the law. Not making law by taking political sides.

Scribbles · 36-40, F

I think alot of Republican politicians are wary about letting OSHA expand or extend their reach too much. Screw health and safety and common sense worker's rights. 🙄

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Scribbles And that from someone who drives a car

Scribbles · 36-40, F

@sunsporter1649 I also walk alot, cycle,take the bus, trains, planes, boats, etc. What's your point?

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Scribbles No risk there, eh?

Budwick · 70-79, M

Expecting consistency from government? LOL

Neither of these organizations should wield the power to shut down business, the economy, life. They're accountable to no one.

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Everyone inside the Beltway must be replaced. @Budwick

cherokeepatti · 61-69, F

they used the Constitution as a basis for their decision

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@cherokeepatti And how is the Constitution different for medical employers than for other employers?

jackjjackson · 61-69, M

Due to the federal government connections with the medical providers. @dancingtongue

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@jackjjackson What connections are we talking about? The federal government has connections with practically all major employers.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

Mugwumping

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@LvChris Nothing to contribute to the actual question being asked?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@LvChris Thank you for elaborating. I may be dense, but I don't know how I should have found that whole distinction on medical conglomerates in your original statement. Nor why medical conglomerates -- far bigger corporations than most of those being exempted under the OSHA ruling -- would not flex their corporate power on the Supreme Court as well.

MethDozer · M

My thinking is that by allowing OSHA to do so it opens up OSHA to possibly create physical fitness mandates as a whole. But that's my quick pulling a quick possibility out of my dumb-ass. I really couldn't tell you why they would or wouldn't.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MethDozer From the questions asked at the hearing, I think that is a plausible explanation on OSHA. They clearly were concerned about whether it expanded OSHA's reach and/or was a workaround to justify other agendas. Perhaps they don't see the same dangers with Medicare/Medicaid overreach, despite some of their decisions on the Affordable Care Act.

MethDozer · M

@dancingtongue I think I could see a couple other arguements too. Like OSHAs power being defined strictly on hazards unique to a job as well maybe. Or maybe it being the power of another agency.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@MethDozer I've also considered the difference between being a purchaser, who can write practically anything into the required specs for the prospective contractor, vs. an over-sight inspection agency. Although specifying workplace vaccination policies in a purchasing contract would seem more of a stretch to me than making it a workplace health & safety requirement.

Add a comment...