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:
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