Explanation of ruling blocking EO For federal employees in comments
(media.communities.win)
🏡 Local WIN 🏘️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (57)
sorted by:
Since some are confused on what the ruling means, I figured I’d give an explanation of the latest ruling out of TX.
We all know SCOTUS ruled in favor of blocking the mandate which would allow OSHA to enforce for employers with 100 plus employees. However, EO 14043 was given the go ahead effecting federal employees. Here’s what happened today.
There was a suit filed by FEDS for Medical Freedom in TX to block both EO’s. Since SCOTUS was already hearing arguments, the Texas filing was pushed back, (IMO) to see what SCOTUS ruled. The first date that was going to be mandatory for federal employees was today. The ruling was also issued today (by a trump appointed judge). He issued an injunction (basically a restraining order against the mandate). Now, it will go through the process and eventually be heard by SCOTUS. Here’s the big take always from his ruling….
The challenges (heard by the case SCOTUS ruled on) fell short due to procedural mis steps or failure to show IMMINENT HARM. (That’s the big one)
The big question is submitting to a vaccine as a condition of employment considered workplace conduct? Here’s where it gets good, with the OSHA ruling, the question was answered in their ruling. SCOTUS clearly defined that since covid is not just in the workplace, it’s not a workplace risk, it’s a universal risk.
The judges take away was that the president has the authority to regulate executive branch policies (Medicare and Medicaid). He does NOT have the authority to regulate employment. That was what SCOTUS said in its ruling.
What this brilliant judge did was wait for SCOTUS’ ruling and turned around to use their own words as a means to block the mandate. It had to be fought like this. These new challenges are where the focus should’ve been. We’ll get there, eventually!!
Excellent explanation anon. This legal landscape is very calculated and your breakdown of these rulings can help many see the forest. Thanks.
I read legal jumbo all day, saw people asking for clarification. Glad to help when I can!
The present legal "system" uses language to obfuscate legal issues as evidenced by the fact that lawyers are needed to interpret "legal decisions" for their clients..
Never forget that in our current system only lawyers are allowed to judge/punish other lawyers. The Bar is made up of all lawyers and only they are allowed to punish lawyers.
What’s funny is it’s typically the paralegals that write the drafts. Judges use previous case law to evidence their decision, that’s where a lot of people get lost but it also helps bc you can go back and reference it. If you use that old English assignment and take out all the big words and unnecessary language, it becomes easier to read.
u/#Flynnarmy
Nice dig anon
Thank you!
Just to play devils advocate, how could SCOTUS uphold health care workers who receive federal money can be mandated but employees of the federal government (who also receive federal money) not?
The issue is that they focused on the wrong challenge. They focused on whether or not OSHA and HHS have the authority to mandate. The judge even pointed it out when he said the “challenges failed to show imminent harm”. What this case has done is shift the challenge from regulating policy to regulating employment. Here’s a quote from the ruling…
“No legal remedy adequately protects the liberty interest of employees who must choose between violating a mandate of doubtful validity or consenting to an unwanted medical procedure that cannot be undone.”
Do you think SCOTUS will uphold today’s decision?
I’m not as concerned with the Circuit seeing the makeup of the states.
I think what Nolagirl99 is pointing out is that this federal court judge brilliantly used the SC reasoning in the OSHA case, to block the federal employee mandate. He's boxing them in with their own language and reasoning. The SC is now bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, i.e., case law precedent. To rule otherwise would to contradict their own recent opinion when the ink isn't even dry on it.
So the Medicare and Medicaid forced vaccine mandate is blocked? Meaning hospitals who get funds from the fed cant force vaccines?
No, pretty sure those are still in effect. This one is about federal government workers.
It needs to be shut down across the board. Masks included. Make it illegal. My clients are sick of wearing masks and some have threaten to leave if forced to get jabbed.
Here’s the thing, there is still the appellate court for the HHS. This judge just laid out a blueprint of how to proceed with the new challenges.
BOOM :P