What's new

Vaccination mandates on the horizon.

Whats crazy is the unrealized ramifications.

Now a bunch of people have experimental shots in their arms that they were coerced into getting by an unconstitutional order issued by the president of the United States.

Man. Thats a lotta responsibility. Be a raw deal if that shot started fuckin people up.
 
Whats crazy is the unrealized ramifications.

Now a bunch of people have experimental shots in their arms that they were coerced into getting by an unconstitutional order issued by the president of the United States.

Man. Thats a lotta responsibility. Be a raw deal if that shot started fuckin people up.

Right. I'd be fuming if I got my shot last week just to realize that I didn't need it to keep my job.
 
Looks like it was kept in some areas of healthcare because of federal funding of medicare. There is federal money involved in many businesses. Wonder how long it is until they are affected.
Baby steps can get you just takes a little longer
 
Whats crazy is the unrealized ramifications.

Now a bunch of people have experimental shots in their arms that they were coerced into getting by an unconstitutional order issued by the president of the United States.

Man. Thats a lotta responsibility. Be a raw deal if that shot started fuckin people up.
I think that was kinda the point all along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAE
Read all about it.


The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its sweeping vaccine-or-test requirements for large private companies, but allowed a vaccine mandate to stand for medical facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid payments.
The rulings came three days after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency measure started to take effect.

That mandate required that workers at businesses with 100 or more employees must get vaccinated or submit a negative Covid test weekly to enter the workplace. It also required unvaccinated workers to wear masks indoors at work.
“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 wrote in an unsigned opinion.
“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,” the court wrote.
106998312-1642102832557-sco.jpg

A demonstrator holds a “Freedoms & Mandates Don’t Mix” sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court during arguments on two federal coronavirus vaccine mandate measures in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Jan. 7, 2022.
Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, writing that the majority has usurped the power of Congress, the president and OSHA without legal basis.
“In the face of a still-raging pandemic, this Court tells the agency charged with protecting worker safety that it may not do so in all the workplaces needed,” they said in their dissent.

“As disease and death continue to mount, this Court tells the agency that it cannot respond in the most effective way possible. Without legal basis, the Court usurps a decision that rightfully belongs to others. It undercuts the capacity of the responsible federal officials, acting well within the scope of their authority, to protect American workers from grave danger,” they wrote.
In a separate, simultaneously released ruling on the administration’s vaccination rules for health-care workers, a 5-4 majority sided with the Biden administration.
“We agree with the Government that the [Health and Human Services] Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,” said the majority, writing that the rule “fits neatly within the language of the statute.”
“After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm,” the majority opinion read.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, four of the six conservatives on the nine-seat bench, dissented.
“I do not think that the Federal Government is likely to be able to show that Congress has authorized the unprecedented step of compelling over 10,000,000 healthcare workers to be vaccinated on pain of being fired,” Alito wrote in his dissent.
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the rulings.
OSHA, which polices workplace safety for the Labor Department, issued the mandates under its emergency power established by Congress. OSHA can shortcut the normal rulemaking process, which can take years, if the Labor secretary determines a new workplace safety standard is necessary to protect workers from a grave danger.
 
The Court ruled that OSHA lacked the authority to impose such a mandate because the law that created OSHA "empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures."

"Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," the Court ruled. "COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases."


By contrast, in Biden v. Missouri, the Court ruled that Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra did have the authority to require all health care workers at institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding to get the jab, unless they get medical or religious exemptions.


While multiple states argued that HHS did not have the scope to issue such a mandate, the Court noted that "healthcare facilities that wish to participate in Medicare and Medicaid have always been obligated to satisfy a host of conditions that address the safe and effective provision of healthcare, not simply sound accounting."
 
The exemptions will abound in states that value that freedom.

The employer is just caught in the middle, they just need you to be on a list of GOOD workers they don't give a F if you are really vaxxed, the GOV on the other hand does want you vaxed and makes stupid fucking rules that cater to that end
 


"In dissent, the court’s three liberals argued that it was the court that was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts. “Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the court displaces the judgments of the government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent."


When exactly did they forget that their job is to interpret existing legalities of said proposals, and not to make or change laws? I don't get this. Determining the health impact has nothing to do with their job. Only "this is legal according to this, this is illegal according to this".

Perhaps I am in the wrong in this as I sucked at this shit in school, but that's what I understand. Right? Wrong?
 
The businesses still acted as though it was going into effect and nothing is stopping them from going forward on their own with Vaccine mandates. People were harassed and fired and some probably caved and got the jab even though they did not want or need it, which is all this was really about, punishing those who do not blindly comply with top down government orders.

In a way this is a win, if something this blatantly unconstitutional were allowed to stand under review from SCOTUS it would be the end of seperation of powers, states rights, even law itself.

In the broader context this is still a loss, the federal government proved to itself yet again that if they can use the unelected bureaucracy to force through unconstitutional actions and set the timelines short enough, then they can largely achieve their goals before anyone can stop them. We will be seeing MUCH more of this in the coming years from all of the assholes in Washington, left and right.
 
"In dissent, the court’s three liberals argued that it was the court that was overreaching by substituting its judgment for that of health experts. “Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis, the court displaces the judgments of the government officials given the responsibility to respond to workplace health emergencies,” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a joint dissent."


When exactly did they forget that their job is to interpret existing legalities of said proposals, and not to make or change laws? I don't get this. Determining the health impact has nothing to do with their job. Only "this is legal according to this, this is illegal according to this".

Perhaps I am in the wrong in this as I sucked at this shit in school, but that's what I understand. Right? Wrong?
You are correct.SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutionality (legality) of this, not make laws.
BTW, a couple of the liberal justices spewed out completely bogus info during the oral arguments.
 
I think that was kinda the point all along.

that was my opinion from the get go. i think ive said before but most people cant survive more than a month without a paycheck or leaving their job would be throwing away decades of climbing the later. biden knew that the fear of losing your job would push people to do it.

Im guessing that will be left up to the employer. If they want to require it they probably can.

but i hope this makes it their responsibility to handle like a piss test. on the clock and on their dime.

In the broader context this is still a loss, the federal government proved to itself yet again that if they can use the unelected bureaucracy to force through unconstitutional actions and set the timelines short enough, then they can largely achieve their goals before anyone can stop them. We will be seeing MUCH more of this in the coming years from all of the assholes in Washington, left and right.

BINGO ... covid if anything has shown how power hungry the government is and will tolerate a hand slap if they get what they want.


also let it show that like a toxic parent, the money stings will always rule the roost.
 
In reading the actual script, I've been through the first two, but at least one side seems to know their job: Justice Gorsuch:

"The question before us is not how to respond to the pan-
demic, but who holds the power to do so. The answer is
clear: Under the law as it stands today, that power rests

7Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2022)
GORSUCH, J., concurring
with the States and Congress, not OSHA. In saying this
much, we do not impugn the intentions behind the agency’s
mandate. Instead, we only discharge our duty to enforce
the law’s demands when it comes to the question who may
govern the lives of 84 million Americans. Respecting those
demands may be trying in times of stress. But if this Court
were to abide them only in more tranquil conditions, decla-
rations of emergencies would never end and the liberties
our Constitution’s separation of powers seeks to preserve
would amount to little."
 
And Quebec says, "tiens ma bière".


Quebec's 'unvaxxed tax' has people rushing to get vaccinated​

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • Email
January 13, 202212:48 PM ET
BILL CHAPPELL
Twitter
0b0f4b57583447756a21339278b1e44fe1a8a1ea-s1100-c50.jpg


A nurse prepares the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for children for distribution in Montreal late last year.
Andrej Ivanov /AFP via Getty Images
Quebec's plan to put a "significant" health tax on unvaccinated people — who account for a large share of COVID-19 hospitalizations — quickly drove a rush of new appointments this week, health officials say.
"It's encouraging!" said Quebec Health Minister Christian Dubé, in a tweet announcing the new gains.
Dubé said the number of new vaccine appointments shot up in the 48 hours around the announcement, reaching what he called a record for several days.

Quebec has reported the most COVID-19 deaths of any Canadian province, with more than 12,000 people losing their lives. With omicron driving new infections, officials recently ordered school closures and a 10 p.m. curfew.
When Quebec Premier Francois Legault announced the plan for a levy on the unvaccinated, he said that only around 10% of Quebec's population is unvaccinated but that they make up 50% of all intensive care cases.
Health officials also noted that the average cost of a COVID-19 case in hospital is $23,000 Canadian. For intensive care, the cost rises to $50,000.

The premier says he owes it to the vaccinated population​

-c676e0e99463571bf5ce48463d375df710327526-s300-c85.jpg

HEALTH

Go back to school and ditch weekly testing: The advice from one children's hospital

"Those who refuse to get their first doses in the coming weeks will have to pay a new health contribution," Legault said Tuesday. "The majority are asking that there be consequences. ... It's a question of fairness for the 90% of the population that have made some sacrifices. We owe them."
The health penalty would not apply to people with legitimate medical exemptions, Legault said. He hasn't given a date for when the penalty will be enacted.
Legault said late Wednesday that Quebec's schools and colleges are now cleared to reopen on Monday. There are also reports that the curfew will be lifted on the same day.
Article continues after sponsor message


The tax is just one strategy to boost vaccination rates​

WORLD​

Canada's COVID testing crisis​

Add toPLAYLIST
Toggle more options

Quebec has been trying to raise vaccination rates in a number of ways — including requiring a vaccine passport for anyone who wants to visit a liquor or cannabis store. In the province, roughly 90% of its eligible population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, according to Canada's COVID-19 tracker.
In another sign of the fallout over vaccines in the province, a judge recently temporarily suspended a father's visitation rights to see his child because he is unvaccinated.
The special health tax immediately stirred controversy among vaccine skeptics and civil rights groups, who question whether it's legal and how it might be fairly enforced. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked about Quebec's plan on Wednesday, he said it was too soon to comment on it.
 

Judenvermögensabgabe​


The Judenvermögensabgabe ("Jewish Capital Levy") was an arbitrary special tax that German Jews had to pay during the National Socialist era.

After the assassination attempt on the German Legation Secretary Ernst Eduard vom Rath and the November pogroms in 1938, Hermann Göring demanded a contribution payment of one billion Reichsmark (RM) as "atonement" for "the hostile attitude of Judaism towards the German people". The decree of 12 November 1938 on the expiation of Jews of German nationality (RGBl. I p. 1579) was signed by Hermann Göring, who had been granted a general power of attorney in 1936 to issue ordinances.[1]

On the same day, the "Ordinance on the Elimination of Jews from German Economic Life" and the "Ordinance on the Restoration of the Street Image in Jewish Commercial Operations" were issued, followed three weeks later by the "Ordinance on the Use of Jewish wealth".
 
Anyone got the scoop on what Kavanaugh's position on this ruling was? I didn't see him joining the conservatives on this one where I expected to see him.
 
Tell someone they're an idiot without saying they're an idiot :laughing:

In looking for legislative support for the vaccine mandate,
the dissent turns to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,
Pub. L. 117–2, 135 Stat. 4. See post, at 8. That legislation,
signed into law on March 11, 2021, of course said nothing
about OSHA’s vaccine mandate, which was not announced
until six months later. In fact, the most noteworthy action
concerning the vaccine mandate by either House of Con-
gress has been a majority vote of the Senate disapproving
the regulation on December 8, 2021. S. J. Res. 29, 117th
Cong., 1st Sess. (2021).

I can't imagine there was a whole lot of deliberation on this...do they ever get into heated debates behind closed doors, do you think, or is it more quick vote, done, we'll write our opinion, you write yours, see ya next Thursday?
 
Tell someone they're an idiot without saying they're an idiot :laughing:



I can't imagine there was a whole lot of deliberation on this...do they ever get into heated debates behind closed doors, do you think, or is it more quick vote, done, we'll write our opinion, you write yours, see ya next Thursday?

politics? Naw....


SCOTUS referencing laws instead of COTUS is scary stuff.
 
Top Back Refresh