Posted on 11/13/2021 3:46:00 AM PST by MtnClimber
““There is no clear expression of congressional intent in § 655(c) to convey OSHA such broad authority [to issue the Mandate], and this court will not infer one. Nor can the Article II executive breathe new power into OSHA’s authority—no matter how thin patience wears.”
This matter of bureaucrats making up law beyond congressional intent was covered by the USSC in Rampanos v US and SWANNC v US. In both cases, federal bureaucrats tried to rewrite the definition of navigable waters. The court ruled that the bureaucrats cannot redefine congressional intent or rewrite legislative law.
If the courts ignore their own rulings, then we have entered complete dictatorial rule by unelected, unaccountable goons. Then it’s time for states to declare the federal government a lawless and unconstitutional criminal organization.
I read the whole thing!
WOW! Just WOW!
If I find time, I would like to highlight for everyone all the STUNNING slap downs this opinion gives OSHA, but there are SO MANY!
Here is just one from a second judge’s concurring opinion.
“Stuart Kyle Duncan, Circuit Judge, concurring:
In addition to the many reasons ably identified by Judge Engelhardt’s opinion, I underscore one reason why these challenges to OSHA’s unprecedented mandate are virtually certain to succeed.”
“Whether Congress could enact such a sweeping mandate under its interstate commerce power would pose a hard question.
See NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 549–61 (2012).
Whether OSHA can do so does not.
I concur in granting a stay.
Case: 21-60845 Document: 00516091902 Page: 22 Date Filed: 11/12/2021
“unprecedented” mandate
“virtually “certain” to succeed.”
The OSHA mandate is TOAST!
Read the entire opinion. You will be glad you did. About time for some VERY GOOD news.
Oh, BTW, its in English, not legalize.
There are sufficient precedents, and courts are skilled at cherry picking, that either or any outcome can be obtained, accompanied by pages of legalese and cite to precedent that produces ANY outcome.
Courts, like prosecutors, can use and abuse precedent and rules with total impunity.
-- ... then we have entered complete dictatorial rule by unelected, unaccountable goons. --
That's what we have. Technically not a dictatorship on account of the form of government on paper. But the form of government on paper does not determine how that government behaves. It is the people using and abusing rules that determine.
I was thinking this morning, out government has decreed that the constitution not only allows, but it COMPELS recognition and normalization of homosexual marriage.
That's a government edict, and it is set forth as being compelled by the constitution.
Lesser malarkey is easy.
This shows that someone approaching with a syringe filled with covid faux vaccine on par with approaching while pointing a gun. How do people protect from a possible attack that has that chance of killing you? Watch the Rittenhouse verdict closely, that defense may get used more if and when they try to forcibly inject folks with something on par with the firearm homicide death rate. People just might start to equate that syringe as a deadly weapon.
from the court's decision:
On September 9, 2021, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle’s tweet that stated, “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.”
“””As someone who has served in senior management roles in the corporate world, I can tell you that this is how these CEOs have been approaching this COVID fiasco:
1. What they really want is legal immunity against workplace lawsuits arising out of COVID or any related measures imposed over the last year and a half — protection from lawsuits by employees who contract the disease, lawsuits by employees who are vaccinated under employer rules and have adverse side effects, etc.
2. These CEOs are never going to get that — for a number of reasons. The biggest one is that tort lawsuits are covered under state law, not Federal law ... so there will ultimately be a patchwork of 50 different state laws that would cover this. Also, Congress would never pass it as long as Democrats have any say in the matter because they are owned by trial lawyer lobbyists.
3. So what the CEO wants is the next best thing: a Federal “mandate” or “regulation” that covers the employer’s ass if there ARE legal ramifications to any COVID policy adopted by the employer.
4. I honestly don’t think most CEOs really want a vaccine mandate. I suspect most CEOs don’t give a damn if any given employee is vaccinated, not vaccinated, “immunized” by some witch doctor who gives exotic potions, etc. What the CEO really wants is to get a single uniform standard in place that covers the company’s ass and eliminates COVID as a distraction. What this means it that there are effectively two options: (A) “vaccinate” everyone, or (B) eliminate almost every COVID-related measure entirely.
5. Most CEOs of large U.S. companies choose Option (A) for one simple reason: At least 75% of their employees are neurotic, gullible cowards who accept whatever idiocy is peddled on social media and buy into the Branch Covidian nonsense ... and who don’t want to work with people who refuse to comply. If 75% of the workers in the U.S. refused to get “vaccinated,” the CEOs would be fighting this OSHA bullsh!t much harder.”””
Well stated and worthy of being repeated.
Whether the CMS mandate is a good idea or not really has nothing to do with the issue. As one of the parties of a contract for Medicare/Medicaid services, Uncle Sam can pretty much impose whatever terms they want under new and/or extended contracts.”
so who has the authority you claim, the President or Congress?
I’d like to see CMSs data proving that the vaccines protect patients. I highly doubt there is any and if that were to turn out to be the case I don’t know how this could be considered legal.
Slowly but surely the vaxxers are losing. This judical stay deals a death blow to the mandate. There are plenty of other law suits waiting in the wings should this one fail for some reason.
Wow, the Fifth Circuit’s plainly written opinion strips the bark right off the tree. A must read IMO.
“There are plenty of leftist CEOs that will do it.”
Plenty of other companies hiring right now, most CEOs do not likely want to play chicken with their talent.
They both do.
Almost all contracts with Federal agencies are executed through the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch can establish contractual terms under the authority given to it by Congress for particular departments, but all contracts are subject to requirements and standards set by Congress.
So unless a contractual term is explicitly required (or forbidden) by Congress, the Executive Branch has a lot of latitude to include provisions in these contracts as it sees fit.
” There are sufficient precedents, and courts are skilled at cherry picking, that either or any outcome can be obtained, accompanied by pages of legalese and cite to precedent that produces ANY outcome.
Courts, like prosecutors, can use and abuse precedent and rules with total impunity.”
That’s a good summation of where we are, but it doesn’t exist with impunity.
States, as sovereigns, are quite able to set up plenary courts and legislatures to overule illegal, unconstitutional diktats from criminals who claim to be legitimate rulers. This is where we are heading.
The dirty, little secret that nobody talks about is that the criminal, fascist federal government cannot exist without the assent and cooperation of the states.
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.