Posted on 10/06/2021 8:27:33 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Thanks
You’re welcome
This guy still doesn't get it. "[I]ssuing an EO" never was an option for the Biden administration with respect to private employers. The "OSHA ETS route" is itself problematic, since any such rule will have to be grounded in authority previously granted by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and it is hardly clear that the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate the sort of rule that Biden is looking for.
That the Biden administration is currently stalling on the OSHA ETS, however, is something that does seem likely. Absent agency action, there's nothing that can be challenged in court.
;)
I do agree that it is mostly a bluff -- that they are trying to gain private employer compliance simply by threatening an OSHA mandate. The problem with actually issue such an order is that OSHA would be hit with legal challenges immediately, likely lose at least one case, and be faced with a national injunction against the policy almost immediately. That's the kind of publicity they wouldn't want, which is likely why OSHA doesn't seem to be in any rush to issue that regulation.
DSH wrote:
“
“THREE: It seems to me that not issuing an EO, and instead going the OSHA ETS route, is less direct, more muddy, and easier to wrangle about in court for a longer period of time. Which is what the feds want.
“
This guy still doesn’t get it. “[I]ssuing an EO” never was an option for the Biden administration with respect to private employers. The “OSHA ETS route” is itself problematic, since any such rule will have to be grounded in authority previously granted by Congress in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and it is hardly clear that the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to promulgate the sort of rule that Biden is looking for.
That the Biden administration is currently stalling on the OSHA ETS, however, is something that does seem likely. Absent agency action, there’s nothing that can be challenged in court.”
SH wrote:
Is there a reason that there can’t be a challenge to companies’ actions, due to there being an -absence- of any OSHA rule?
If the OSHA regulations are available, can’t the whole ‘book’ be used as proof that there is -no- rule in there justifying the actions of the companies with 100 or more employees?
Global socialist “ownership” of American “livestock” is so complete, we obey the very words of the fraudulently installed dimentia puppet.
DHS, DOJ-FBI, HHS, etc... do not need or use law, or science, or proof of violated laws either, to carry out thuggery, persecution, solitary confinement, confiscation/elimination of rights and property, or even death.
In fact, all government agencies, including state and local police in most cases, celebrate and live to violate actual supreme laws of the land.
Especially when the myriad law enforcement violations committed by federal and state judiciaries, and fed agencies provide the unlawful, immoral, and treasonous cover.
All they need is perceived knowledge one of their livestock isn’t in thought or word, willing to be slaughtered, or isn’t okay with their wife and children being slaughtered, or is not okay with their wife or children being morally perverted property of the state, or unwillimg to hand over their children to satan - the no longer hidden God of government.
This is where we are.
The communist expansion of this dark tyranny continues at a breath-taking pace...
With virtually zero opposition, our ruling communist masters are loving life...
They are on an unstoppable roll!
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regarding Biden's teleprompter leading from the rear through so-called OSHA, please consider the following.
Patriots are reminded that not only does the Constitution give elected members of Congress full responsibility for all federal government legislative /regulatory decisions, not non-elected bureaucrats running politically correct, so-called "independent federal regulatory agencies," but also that all nearly all decisions that federal bureaucrats make are based on stolen state powers, not constitutionally enumerated federal powers.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, lawless, post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers arguably established so-called "federal regulatory agencies" so that they could hide behind these agencies, letting non-elected bureaucrats do their unpopular, unconstitutional dirty work for them, so that career lawmakers can keep their voting records clean and get reelected.
The bottom line is that federal regulatory agencies are deliberate smoke-and-mirrors that effectively nullify the constitutionally enumerated voting protections of citizens imo.
The remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic-pirated federal government that is oppressing everybody under its boots...
Consider that all the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.
Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.
Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments, but also an amendment to clean up the judiciary.
Corrections, insights welcome.
If a private employer wants to issue a vaccine mandate in the absence of any OSHA regulation, they're free to do so. There may be various different grounds on which such a mandate could be challenged by those with standing (e.g., affected employees), but not on account of there not (yet) being any OSHA regulation.
If the OSHA regulations are available, can’t the whole ‘book’ be used as proof that there is -no- rule in there justifying the actions of the companies with 100 or more employees?
I'm not sure I quite understand this question, but if/when the OSHA ETS is promulgated, it will be amenable to challenge on the grounds that (among other things), the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not authorize OSHA to adopt a rule that imposes whatever specific requirements the rule might impose.
He makes the case very clearly that the mRNA vaccines are much more dangerous and unsafe than the actual Covid-19 disease.
This is a very powerful hour long video, well worth your time to view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.