Explanation of ruling blocking EO For federal employees in comments
(media.communities.win)
🏡 Local WIN 🏘️
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..
Congress's Article II exclusive right and obligation is to make law, but aren't they almost done after more than two centuries? Maybe a tweak here and there but.... Asking for a Fren.
Fun facts. James Madison quote: “It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood…” James Madison
Federal legislature and most if not all state legislatures used to have to read proposed bills aloud in their entirety before the entire chamber before a vote could be taken.
Now they just read the title 3 times. To think, we could have been spared so may things like Obamacare if that rule as originally written wasn't consistently "waived" by our betters.
And allow adequate time for the public to read and weigh in on the issue
Considering the sheer number of lawyers IN congress explains why no simple language-just gotta build in loopholes and sneak in 'amendments'...
I am a lawyer and I agree LOL.
I do believe God's Laws are the original foundation of the Constitution-the Ten Commandments being removed is proof the existing system does NOT please God... Work off them to cover modern contingencies (at a low maximum) and the legal linguists will need training..
Quite Right. The basis of the Bill of Rights is Common Law which is based on Natural Law. Every student should be required to read Thomas Aquinas' works on Natural Law. His entire treatise is oriented in interpreting man's relationship to the Laws of Nature. This is the foundation of Western jurisprudence.
Unfortunately, all the law schools are very biased toward and advocate 'Law Positive'. Common law is taught as if it was an archaic ideology in evolution like Neanderthal man is compared to modern man. If you want to understand why lawyers are so screwed-up ideologically, its because of being fully indoctrinated in 'Law Positive'. To better understand this unfolding tragedy, simply look up -- "Law Positive versus Common Law"
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.
So ol' Billy boy sayin "Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.."
😎
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.
Much better explanation! Thanks
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
This is one of the many reasons they want to completely socialise healthcare. The point is worthless if everything is medicare. That's what they did in Australia - pretty much every element of healthcare is state controlled.
Notice what just happened. In one fell swoop, through the incompetency of the past 2 years of medical malpractice and medical tyranny, I and millions of other Americans think the healthcare system is such a piece of trash, we will never partake. Any dream they had of socialized medicine is OVER.
Libs don't understand giving the government control over ANYTHING always results in shit. But their usual response is "Look at Canada, free healthcare! We are a first world nation and we don't have free healthcare!"
However, in the free market, insurance companies are shitty and medical providers charge a lot of money.
We still need a solution IMO. Hopefully taking down the cabal will fix all this.
In the end, how can SCOTUS rule against it's self by using the precedent they set in the OSHA ruling? Absolutely brilliant!
Exactly! Like u/HelloDolly said, he’s boxing them in with their own language and reasoning.
Thanks you!
Only problem I saw reading through this is the Courts still have extreme deference on the necessity of the mandate and that the Clot Shot saves lives (It doesn't).
Rather, they oppose the implementation of this through Executive Fiat on Federal Contractors (EO 14043).
Also, they rejected judicial review of the mandate outright, which wasn't surprising, but does show deference to the Executive, ala the Chevron Doctrine.
That’s where the judges have to look unbiased. “While we think vaccination is best, it’s overreach to force an employee to take it” blah blah blah.
This judge is bringing the focus back to the validity and outright questioning the authority of the president even being able to issue a mandate. The beauty is that he uses SCOTUS’ recent decision to highlight his points.
But if the court is wrong and the President indeed has authority over the conduct of civilian federal employees in general—in or out of the workplace—“what is the logical stopping point of that power?” Kentucky v. Biden, No. 21-6147, 2022 WL 43178, at *15 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022). Is it a “de facto police power”? Id. The government has offered no answer—no limiting principle to the reach of the power they insist the President enjoys. For its part, this court will say only this: however extensive that power is, the federal-worker mandate exceeds it
The court cites it as an overreach of the Executive, not of the Federal Government as a whole. They imply that if Congress issued a law, they would follow it. Or if you were Barrett, then if the States implemented it, then SCOTUS wont challenge it. Thankfully, the Senate issued a vote prior, condemning the OSHA mandate along party lines. This made it unambiguous where Congress was at regarding any mandate.
Bottom line is that they seem to favour it if Congress or the States did the mandate, especially if it was the States that did it.
IMO, this is how people learn about the different branches and their functions and limitation. Devolution of the courts if you will
It’s more than just existing outside of the workplace. He cited that ruling to use their own decision and words to make the point of medical freedom of choice. The president doesn’t not have the authority to mandate a vaccine. It would have to go through Congress. That’s the new focus. This judge basically told the other attorneys what challenges to bring forth moving forward!
Yet federal jobs and contracting jobs all post this requirement.
What do you mean? I work for a company that does contracts with the fed govt. Right now they put mandates on hold. So I'm curious what this means for me.
My small company that also has federal contracts has not approved my religious exemption or said anything in months. There are a lot of veterans and I think a lot of us said “fuck you” and are willing to lose our jobs over this. No engineers, no ability to work these contracts. The owners are not stupid. I’m pretty sure they are biding their time waiting for the courts to save them.
Thanks!