ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 3 of 18
< 123 456713 > Last »
Patteeu Memorial Political Forum>Lawsuit list vs Biden Mandates
F150 10:20 AM 11-05-2021

11 states sue the Biden administration over private employer vaccine requirement https://t.co/bLPlU9yzXg pic.twitter.com/oKtfKiPyxP

— Forbes (@Forbes) November 5, 2021


Seems that the total pressure against this extreme overreach by the administration has to at some point lead to the mandates going away.

Having had experience with OSHA, I see this as draconian as they are extremists when enforcing any OSHA reg.
[Reply]
Discuss Thrower 03:10 PM 11-06-2021
Originally Posted by Bowser:
I hadn't realized SCOTUS has outstanding citizened out just yet
You know, the Sun has yet to rise in the east tomorrow morning but I can be pretty certain that it will.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 03:57 PM 11-06-2021
Originally Posted by Imon Yourside:
There it is
It's just temporary right now. The gov't has a chance to argue why it shouldn't be permanent.
[Reply]
BlackOp 04:09 PM 11-06-2021
Here's the beauty of fascism...

Biden puppet can announce these vaccine mandates...they arent laws...BUT...all these global corporations/ Globalist Governors on the WEF agenda are "green-lighted...and acting as is they ARE already laws.

Completely circumventing how our government is structured...

People have been resigning everywhere...over something Biden-puppet illegally pulled out of his ass.

They want THAT vaccine in as many bodies as possible...doesn't matter if it makes sense or if it works. Doesn't matter if you are pregnant, religious or have anti-bodies...they dont care.

It's ALWAYS been about this specific vaccine...
[Reply]
Aries Walker 06:35 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
It's just temporary right now. The gov't has a chance to argue why it shouldn't be permanent.
Exactly. I would have been shocked if there wasn't a temporary stay at first.

I imagine the arguments will be that it places undue burden on already-employee-strapped companies, that it isn't an emergency, or that it is an end run around State power over public health. Nothing is definite, but if I had to pick, I'd say they'll all fail and it will go through.

We'll see, though.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 07:04 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Aries Walker:
Exactly. I would have been shocked if there wasn't a temporary stay at first.

I imagine the arguments will be that it places undue burden on already-employee-strapped companies, that it isn't an emergency, or that it is an end run around State power over public health. Nothing is definite, but if I had to pick, I'd say they'll all fail and it will go through.

We'll see, though.

There is nothing even remotely Constitutional about it. If it goes through, we might as well get the civil war started.
[Reply]
Bowser 07:04 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Aries Walker:
Exactly. I would have been shocked if there wasn't a temporary stay at first.

I imagine the arguments will be that it places undue burden on already-employee-strapped companies, that it isn't an emergency, or that it is an end run around State power over public health. Nothing is definite, but if I had to pick, I'd say they'll all fail and it will go through.

We'll see, though.
Except for that pesky Constitution, of course.
[Reply]
Snopes Hammer 07:12 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
There is nothing even remotely Constitutional about it. If it goes through, we might as well get the civil war started.

[Reply]
Just Passin' By 07:32 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by :
Democratic Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly came out against President Biden’s vaccine mandate as one that is not the "most effective" or "correct" for her state.

"Yesterday, I reviewed the new vaccine mandate from the Biden Administration. While I appreciate the intention to keep people safe, a goal I share, I don’t believe this directive is the correct, or the most effective, solution for Kansas," she said in a statement released Friday.

"States have been leading the fight against COVID-19 from the start of the pandemic. It is too late to impose a federal standard now that we have already developed systems and strategies that are tailored for our specific needs," she continued...

Democratic governor turns on Biden vaccine mandate, not 'correct' or 'effective' solution


Biden's now losing his Democrat support.
[Reply]
Bowser 07:38 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
Democratic governor turns on Biden vaccine mandate, not 'correct' or 'effective' solution


Biden's now losing his Democrat support.
She's a Dem governor in a Pub state (thanks Johnson, Wyandotte and Sedgwick counties!). She knows what she's doing.
[Reply]
Aries Walker 11:19 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
There is nothing even remotely Constitutional about it. If it goes through, we might as well get the civil war started.
It gets its authority to regulate the workplace through the law that created OSHA back in 1970, which was based on the Commerce Clause. That was passed by a bipartisan Congress, signed by a Republican President, and reinforced by a conservative-led Supreme Court many times since. It's on pretty solid Constitutional ground, regardless of what the Twitterverse insists.

But it's the authority to regulate the workplace, not to enforce public health. That's why it only affects people at work, and why it required a legit emergency to enact. It has limits, and I think it stays within them.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 11:33 PM 11-07-2021
Originally Posted by Aries Walker:
It gets its authority to regulate the workplace through the law that created OSHA back in 1970, which was based on the Commerce Clause. That was passed by a bipartisan Congress, signed by a Republican President, and reinforced by a conservative-led Supreme Court many times since. It's on pretty solid Constitutional ground, regardless of what the Twitterverse insists.

But it's the authority to regulate the workplace, not to enforce public health. That's why it only affects people at work, and why it required a legit emergency to enact. It has limits, and I think it stays within them.

To repeat:


Originally Posted by :
There is nothing even remotely Constitutional about it. If it goes through, we might as well get the civil war started.

[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:57 AM 11-08-2021
Originally Posted by Aries Walker:
It gets its authority to regulate the workplace through the law that created OSHA back in 1970, which was based on the Commerce Clause. That was passed by a bipartisan Congress, signed by a Republican President, and reinforced by a conservative-led Supreme Court many times since. It's on pretty solid Constitutional ground, regardless of what the Twitterverse insists.

But it's the authority to regulate the workplace, not to enforce public health. That's why it only affects people at work, and why it required a legit emergency to enact. It has limits, and I think it stays within them.
You're using the wrong facts for a flawed argument.

It does not get it's authority from the original OSHA because OSHA was not granted the type of authority being given to it. It's never been used this way before. So it violates what is called the Major Rules changes, which requires a legislative act—as if they even have that kind of general police power since that belongs to the State's and always has. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called White House chief of staff Ron Klain’s recent tweet calling this mandate as executing the "ultimate work-around" the Constitution as "breathtakingly daft."

This is the executive branch crafting a new major rule which the president does not have the power to do, because they know it won't pass. Especially when Congress has exempted themselves from the vaccine mandate. So much for equality under the law here. However, this legislation by bureaucracy. Furthermore, private enterprise is NOT the law enforcement arm of the Federal govt.

It's not like SC judges won't have any bias, they must listen to the fear porn about covid too. But if enough do uphold it, and we know the NeoLiberal Fascists on the left will, then they're not really the strict constructionists they claim to be.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:25 AM 11-08-2021
The federal govt has been abusing Emergency Powers. I don't see any Emergency Powers in the Constitution and I don't see that it gets rid of civil rights—the right to refuse medical treatment, informed consent enshrined in our laws from the Nuremberg codes when it's not out of EUA and no one knows all the ingredients. How can one have informed consent under these conditions?

TechnoFog, a lawyer on substack does one of the best legal analysis of this mandate.

On September 9, President Biden announced he would circumvent the democratic process, ordering the Secretary of the Department of Labor to require employers with over 100 workers to “ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”
This was essential, as Biden said, “to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated workers.” <—Just look at this illogical nonsense—a virtual oxymoron and people actually buy it. :-) This does not meet scrict scrutiny legally.

While the Biden Administration tells the public that there’s no time to waste in issuing the mandate, the truth is that OSHA/Labor failed to argue the necessity of a vaccine mandate since the vaccines have been available – a time period approaching one year. Moreover, the Biden Department of Labor is secretly meeting with the US Chamber of Commerce and business lobbyists to gather support for the mandate. [Corps merging with the state in the private-public model is classic definition of fascism.]


Why the Vaccine Mandate is Unconstitutional

As you can imagine, the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate will be litigated as soon as OSHA issues the rules. The media is running interference, telling the public that challenges to the mandate are “unlikely to succeed.”

Do not believe them.

The legality of the vaccine mandate will be assessed under what is called the major rules doctrine (also known as the major questions doctrine). Under this doctrine, the courts look to
(1) whether the agency action is a major rule; and

(2) whether Congress has clearly authorized the agency action.
As Justice Scalia stated in 2014,
“We expect congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”
From here we turn to the first question of the major rules doctrine: there is zero doubt that it is a major rule. It would affect the healthcare decisions – and implicate the personal autonomy – of “some 80 million private sector workers.” It is an action never before taken by OSHA, the Department of Labor, and any other federal agency. It would affect the entire US economy.

In support of my position, we have seen lesser invasive agency rules be determined to be major rules. ...


Looking to the history of OSHA, this authority has been understood to regulate employer actions to provide a safe workplace (Benzene limits) or employee actions at work (operation of heavy equipment). The OSH Act has never been understood historically to include mandatory vaccinations. This is significant because the Supreme Court recently looked to agency history to determine the CDC lacked the authority to issue its latest eviction mandate.


...Going further, to allow the mandate would be to allow OSHA to require vaccination as a condition of employment. The OSH Act contains no such language or authority.....

We also observe that we by no means concede Congressional authority to mandate vaccines. (In other words, Congress could not give OSHA/Labor this authority because Congress has no such authority to give.)

https://technofog.substack.com/p/why...accine-mandate
What do you say to those arguments Aries Walker?
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:27 AM 11-08-2021
One Final Point – Why Justice Kavanaugh Matters

In 2017, when Justice Kavanaugh was sitting on the DC Circuit, he wrote a dissent from a denial of rehearing en banc, in which he thoroughly summarized the major rules doctrine. He argued that the FCC’s net neutrality rule was unlawful, in that it was a “major rule” that was not clearly authorized by Congress.

Kavanaugh’s 2017 dissent was one of the most (or perhaps the most) comprehensive discussions of the major rules doctrine ever written in the DC Circuit. Kavanaugh went through a number of Supreme Court cases in support of his position and argued the doctrine essential to uphold the separation of powers. To this author, it reveals Kavanaugh values this doctrine and believes it should be applied with vigor.

We see an example of this in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the original application to vacate the stay of the CDC eviction moratorium (June 29, 2021), where Kavanaugh wrote “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation) would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium.”

Whether Kavanaugh has the courage to apply his convictions is another matter.


https://technofog.substack.com/p/why...accine-mandate

[Reply]
Marcellus 10:50 AM 11-08-2021
Originally Posted by Aries Walker:
It gets its authority to regulate the workplace through the law that created OSHA back in 1970, which was based on the Commerce Clause. That was passed by a bipartisan Congress, signed by a Republican President, and reinforced by a conservative-led Supreme Court many times since. It's on pretty solid Constitutional ground, regardless of what the Twitterverse insists.

But it's the authority to regulate the workplace, not to enforce public health. That's why it only affects people at work, and why it required a legit emergency to enact. It has limits, and I think it stays within them.

There is no current emergency as proven by the US lifting the non essential non citizen travel ban today as well as sporting events with thousands upon thousands of people in attendance with no mandates.

Its ludicrous to even attempt to argue this mandate makes sense when you look at the "science".
[Reply]
Page 3 of 18
< 123 456713 > Last »
Up