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:
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