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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.