5th Circuit Court Of Appeals Warns Biden / OSHA As Biden Ignores Court, Encourages Continued Mandate Enforcement

[easyt65]

It wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The court said it brought up valid Constitutional issues so they were putting a hold on it.

It wasn't ruled Constitutional, either...and cannot be.

The Constitution does not give the President such powers, which is why it was proclaimed OSHA can; however, the Constitution does not give OSHA such power/ authority.

 

[WEATHER53]

Here is a link to the full ruling.

https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/db446ada300c17b1c8e3a6530561a46f/e7ff5065/BSTHoldingsvOSHAOrder.pdf

There is far too much great stuff in here to summarize adequately. The court completely slammed the Biden Admin...

On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster—which we need not decide today9—it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own terms....

After the President voiced his displeasure with the country’s vaccination rate in September,12 the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a “work-around,”...

But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate[] exercise[]” of this “extraordinary power.”

Equally problematic, however, is that it remains unclear that COVID-19—however tragic and devastating the pandemic has been—poses the kind of grave danger § 655(c)(1) contemplates....

The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad...the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had the virus....

At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive. The most vulnerable worker in America draws no protection from the Mandate if his company employs 99 workers or fewer....this kind of thinking belies the premise that any of this is truly an emergency. Indeed, underinclusiveness of this sort is often regarded as a telltale sign that the government’s interest in enacting a liberty-restraining pronouncement is not in fact “compelling.”...

the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary....

the Mandate flunks a cost-benefit analysis...

the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause...

Second, concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation....

For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency
Temporary Standard”22 remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.23
In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.

Translation-Mandate is unenforceable Nazi bullshit lacking basis in fact.

 

[WEATHER53]

If a store tells you they won’t ring you out because no mask then walk out with the items. You cannot be prosecuted as you did not steal based on their refusal to accept payment

 

[pknopp]

It's unconstitutional. This is the second court that has ruled against bidens unlawful decrees.

I have said many, many times that I disagree with the mandate but one can be honest about the proceedings up to this point and still make your point. You do not have to lie or misrepresent what has happened.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't ruled Constitutional, either...and cannot be.

The Constitution does not give the President such powers, which is why it was proclaimed OSHA can; however, the Constitution does not give OSHA such power/ authority.

With the fact I never said it was Constitutional or ruled Constitutional.

 

[WEATHER53]

There does not have to be a law stating that refusing a vaccine is OK. There are laws prohibiting forcing vaccines and forcing provision of proof.

 

[pknopp]

There does not have to be a law stating that refusing a vaccine is OK. There are laws prohibiting forcing vaccines and forcing provision of proof.

The courts have been ruling against people so there must not be such laws.

U.S. court upholds hospital employee COVID-19 vaccine rule in test case

A Judge Has Thrown Out A Lawsuit Brought By Hospital Workers Over A Vaccine Mandate

In a five-page ruling issued Saturday, a U.S. judge upheld Houston Methodist Hospital's vaccination policy, saying its requirement that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine breaks no federal law.

www.npr.org

Even the Supreme Court has done so.

Supreme Court rejects Maine health care workers' effort to block COVID-19 vaccine mandate

 

[easyt65]

With the fact I never said it was Constitutional or ruled Constitutional.

Agreed, I was just saying...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I have said many, many times that I disagree with the mandate but one can be honest about the proceedings up to this point and still make your point. You do not have to lie or misrepresent what has happened.

Two courts have made their decision. We all knew it was unconstitutional. That's not misrepresenting.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The courts have been ruling against people so there must not be such laws.

U.S. court upholds hospital employee COVID-19 vaccine rule in test case

A Judge Has Thrown Out A Lawsuit Brought By Hospital Workers Over A Vaccine Mandate

In a five-page ruling issued Saturday, a U.S. judge upheld Houston Methodist Hospital's vaccination policy, saying its requirement that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine breaks no federal law.

www.npr.org

Even the Supreme Court has done so.

Supreme Court rejects Maine health care workers' effort to block COVID-19 vaccine mandate

Those didn't have anything to do with the federal govt. Precedent has been set over a century ago in regards to courts ruling with private business over this issue.

 

[pknopp]

Those didn't have anything to do with the federal govt. Precedent has been set over a century ago in regards to courts ruling with private business over this issue.

School kids have long had to get vaccinated.

 

[DrLove]

It's a temporary stay Loon and "not intended to be any sort of final judgement". The vaccine mandate will be held up by SCOTUS based on 70 years of precedent.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Biden regime and Dems will go right on ignoring the courts. Dems have zero respect for any court decision that gets in the way of their agenda. They immediately try to do end runs around court decisions vs respecting them.

 

[pknopp]

The Biden regime and Dems will go right on ignoring the courts. Dems have zero respect for any court decision that gets in the way of their agenda. They immediately try to do end runs around court decisions vs respecting them.

The court ruling does not stop any business from implementing vaccine mandates.

 

[FA_Q2]

School kids have long had to get vaccinated.

Also has nothing to do with the federal government.

The courts have ruled that the states have that power. They would, IMHO, likely even rule the federal government had the power as well. However, in this case, it was not even the federal government that set this mandate but just one branch. Thankfully an actual law is not going before the SCOTUS.

What makes this such a glaring constitutional overreach is the president essentially mandating this on his own. Interestingly enough, this does actually place a HUGE legal tool the regulatory agencies rely on, the weakness of the non-delegation principle, squarely within the reach of the court. The Biden mandates may very well create an atmosphere FAR MORE favorable to republican goals than democrat goals than their wildest dreams. I have doubts the court will do so though. More than likely they will find a way to narrow the ruling as much as possible.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's a temporary stay Loon and "not intended to be any sort of final judgement". The vaccine mandate will be held up by SCOTUS based on 70 years of precedent.

Unlikely.

And you will howl when they don't.

 

[DrLove]

Unlikely.

And you will howl when they don't.

Nah, I'll be happy to bet on it if you're so inclined. Month off the board? It's incredibly hypocritical what idiot governors like DeSandToes and Fappit are doing. They're saying - Hey big gub-ment. You can't tell our private businesses what they can and cannot do. That's OUR job. Really dumb.

 

[pknopp]

Also has nothing to do with the federal government.

Of course it does.

The courts have ruled that the states have that power. They would, IMHO, likely even rule the federal government had the power as well. However, in this case, it was not even the federal government that set this mandate but just one branch. Thankfully an actual law is not going before the SCOTUS.

What makes this such a glaring constitutional overreach is the president essentially mandating this on his own. Interestingly enough, this does actually place a HUGE legal tool the regulatory agencies rely on, the weakness of the non-delegation principle, squarely within the reach of the court. The Biden mandates may very well create an atmosphere FAR MORE favorable to republican goals than democrat goals than their wildest dreams. I have doubts the court will do so though. More than likely they will find a way to narrow the ruling as much as possible.

We have gone well past the idea of what one believes.

 

[The Original Tree]

Translation-Mandate is unenforceable Nazi bullshit lacking basis in fact.

THE Nazis started requiring their citizens to show "Health Cards" which included their vaccination records. Orthodox Jews are opposed to vaccinations, which is one of the many reasons they were singled out, lost their jobs, businesses, wealth, freedom and ultimately their lives.

The Democrat Party is just emulating to an exact science exactly what The NAZIS did.

DemNazis same as Them Nazis.

This is completely a political weaponization of Government against people The Democrat Party views as The Enemy.

 

[MisterBeale]

This is a 100% legit reason for impeachment.

Willful violtion of the Constitution and brazen defiance of courts telling the Biden administration to stop their bullshit.

Just fucking unreal.

If Republicans take the House, keep the Senate, and they actually manage to remove him?

Ya think they could remove Kamala too?



She would first have to do something impeachment worthy.


Who knows. . . maybe she would surprise us and be good leader leader. . . .