— Dr. Nickarama (@nickaramaOG) January 13, 2022
Posted on 01/13/2022 5:59:20 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court came in today with a decision blocking the Biden administration’s OSHA mandate on private businesses with 100 or more employees requiring that employees be vaccinated or tested weekly. The Court ruled they didn’t have the unilateral power to impose such a mandate. The Court did, however, allow a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
Not only did the Court soundly reject Joe Biden in the effort to impose his will on private businesses, Justice Neil Gorsuch also reserved a few words for White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain.
When the Biden team initially announced this idea of the OSHA mandate back in September, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle took note suggesting how clever it was that they found the “ultimate work-around” to imposing a national mandate. Klain then retweeted it.
— Dr. Nickarama (@nickaramaOG) January 13, 2022
As I noted the next day — along with Sen. Ted Cruz and law professor Jonathan Turley — that was a bad move that was likely going to come back on Klain and Biden. Indeed it did, then later in November, when the 5th Circuit upheld the stay on the vaccine mandate, noting what Klain had said, noting Biden was against mandates before he was for them and didn’t have any explanation as to why they were trying to impose this now when it clearly wasn’t emergent earlier in the pandemic.
Now, in an example of how stupid Klain’s retweet was and how tweets can come back to haunt you, Klain was nailed for it when Gorsuch, in his concurrence, took note of what Klain had done. Gorsuch was joined by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch referenced the 5th Circuit in noting the “ultimate work-around.” “It seems, too, that the agency pursued its regulatory initiative only as a legislative ‘work-around,’” Gorsuch wrote.
The @LJCenter @PelicanInst petition to the 5th Circuit submitted Biden Chief of Staff @RonaldKlain's retweet about the #OSHA mandate being "the ultimate work-around" for the Fed govt to issue a vax mandate.
Both the 5th circuit's stay & the Gorsuch concurrence took note. 😉
pic.twitter.com/UMeFQu0mpo— Liberty Justice Center (@LJCenter) January 13, 2022
Pro-tip to Ron Klain? When you brag about how clever you are on Twitter while revealing your unconstitutional intention, it just may come back to bite you in the butt, and it did big time.
Ron Klain is not reacting well in response. Someone should tell him to step away from Twitter before he gets Biden into more trouble.
How bad are things at the Biden White House right now?
Ron Klain is retweeting polls that show the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Biden is doing.
pic.twitter.com/E6nxCsIoRk— Francis Brennan (@FrancisBrennan) January 13, 2022
We didn't impose ANY vaccine requirements until August, and the one the Court stayed today was not announced until September. These requirements were used only after persuasion, incentives ($100 to get a vax), and final FDA approval were all in place. https://t.co/fHiM9Fvz0S
— Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) January 13, 2022
The bottom line was you telegraphed your game, Ron. SCOTUS sent you a clear message — you are not a king and you don’t get to impose your illegal will by stomping all over the Constitution. And saying something akin to “They didn’t listen to us so that’s why we had to act illegally” is also not a good look. And you wonder why Joe Biden is at 33 percent approval?
Problem with Biden’s vaccine strategy from the outset:
1) He completely skipped over trying to educate & persuade vaccine skeptics & went straight to mandates, which makes many skeptics dig in their heels
2) Virtually no one thought the mandate would ultimately hold up in Court
Now I have a question regarding the other half of the decision ( in which Justice Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the liberal wing of the court ):
How are we to understand the ruling where SCOTUS allowed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for most health care workers?
Is this only limited to FEDERAL Government Hospitals? Or do they cover private hospitals? I mean aren’t private hospitals considered private businesses? If so, they should not be covered by the vaccine mandate.
But then this ruling is vague and does not clarify.
How are we to interpret this ruling? Are private hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid payments covered by this mandate?
The foundational issue is still that of the premise of the lethality of Covid being so high across all ages and conditions (vs. mainly the aged and unhealthy) and that of vaccination being so effective that such a mandate could be justified, which increasingly is evidenced to not be as efficacious as promoted, especially in the long term.
“ Are private hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicaid payments covered by this mandate?”
Yes.
As a side note, it appears accepting federal money comes with some serious strings, so sanctuary cities/states better take note.
“We didn’t impose ANY vaccine requirements until August, and the one the Court stayed today was not announced until September. These requirements were used only after persuasion, incentives ($100 to get a vax), and final FDA approval were all in place.”
That is the logic of a rapist. “I asked you nicely, even offered you dinner, but you still said ‘no’”. “So now I have to force you.”
RE: The foundational issue is still that of the premise of the lethality of Covid being so high across all ages and conditions (vs. mainly the aged and unhealthy) and that of vaccination being so effective that such a mandate could be justified
_____________________________________
I’ve heard the pro-Mandate side argue that you should look at the vaccine mandate as similar to the requirement to wear your seat belt when you drive.
The Seat Belt does not prevent accidents ( just as the vaccines do not prevent infection ), but seat belt laws save lives when accidents occur ( just as vaccines prevent severe illnesses and deaths when infections occur ).
What do you think about this argument?
Basically, any medical facility or provider that accepts federal money of any kind is going to be required to have vaxxed staff.
Expect a lot of private and independent providers to stop accepting medicare or medicaid. They don’t need the aggravation for peanut pay.
And all the high quality staff working for public hospitals will leave, further destroying the quality of care for those with no other options.
Apples and Oranges, because seatbelts are not permanently attached to your body.
Also known as the fallacy of false equivalence.
A seat-belt does not:
o change your DNA
o introduce risk of blood clots, inflammation of the heart, risk of stroke
o get manufactured with fetal stem-cells
o enter your body
o exist as an extended experiment and shield it's manufacturer from liability
o is not irreversible, and is removed when you leave your vehicle.
(to name just a few things)
Quoted like mad...
“vaccines prevent severe illnesses and deaths when infections occur”
But where’s the scientific proof?
Makes no difference. They rules that OSHA cannot enforce it. Biden just calls the airlines and large multinationals and asks them to please require it as a condition of employment.
They will do so.
Some poor schlub will sue, and the Courts will rule no standing. And all the Free Traitors will bray “private company rules must be obeyed”, and “go work elsewhere if you don’t like it”.
A seat belt does not play games with my DNA, my immune system, hurt when I get it, make me sick for a few days, and possibly give me a stroke or heart attack.
It is truly benign when I use one.
Seat belt wearing is invasive? Experimental?
Irreversible?
Not even close to the same as the jabs.
The Court disavowed any intention to rule on mandates AS POLICY. They made no findings about whether vaccines were good, or bad, or necessary, or safe, or dangerous.
They simply ruled that the laws which created OSHA did not grant OSHA the authority to do this, while the laws that created Medicare and Medicaid DID grant CMS the authority to do this.
Simple. You can remove the seat belt when you exit the car, (a necessity if you want to get out of the car), but you can not remove the vaccine when you leave the work site, quit or get fired. That is permanent.
The only way this argument would make sense is if you are required to have the seat belt permanently implanted around your waist.
Well, thanks for asking, but I disagree with the foundational premise that there must be more laws to protect us from ourselves, vs. protecting others (buckle up passengers if not yourself), with the latter being the usual rational for vaccine mandates (kids can infect grandparents...)
Otherwise the analogy is lacking in equivalence. The efficacy of a seat belt is not much conditional upon the age or health of the person in a crash, nor related to whether they had survived crashes ("acquired protection"), while they have no real negative risks (how many people die because of seat belts?), and does not need constant upgrades (the Tercel outside has the same ones from 1992), while clearly saving lives, and youth likely at least as much as elderly alike.
. Meanwhile vaccination is of very limited efficacy over the space of a year, thus requiring more "installations," and if it was very effective then it would not justify vax mandates since the vaxxed would not be in danger from the unvaxxed, while the argument of reduced deaths has its own problems (many of the unvaxxed are likely those who spurn health care), and not only is there more chance for youth dying in vehicle accidents than from Covid, but while being of small percentage, there have been thousands of negative effects related to it. Thus the analogy fails due to false equivalency, with cost/benefits not justifying an all-ages and conditions mandate.
In addition, if saving lives from an infectious diseases warrant such long-term severe restrictions on freedom of movement, travel, association and even breathing, then where the equivalent program to greasily reduce obesity, while murdering innocents is hardly consistent with saving lives.
Nov. 18 (as well as at the original time of this writing on 12/10/21), the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) — which is the percentage of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. out of the total number of cases — is 1.6%, and which includes all people of all ages and conditions. Based on statistics from between the beginning of January 2020 until December 8, 2021,the CFR for those aged 0-17 calculates (Y is what % of X) to 0.01% (644 deaths out of 6,310,536 cases); and for those aged 18-29 the CFR is 0.05% (4,700 deaths out of 8,667,566 cases); for ages 30-39 it is 0.21% (13,882 deaths out of 6,697,096 cases)
For comparison, the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident are 1 in 107 (0.93%) and your chances of getting into a motor vehicle accident are one in 366 (0.27%) for every 1,000 miles driven. And thus despite headlines of exceptions, for the young (and fit and healthy) the odds of dying from Covid-19 are very minimal.That is, unless you are “quarantined” in the womb. since as the CDC reports, "in 2019, the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births,” which means that the “pregnancy fatality rate” (PFR) is 19.5% (excluding spontaneous miscarriages among known pregnancies which are estimated to average approx. 15%).
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.
