Posted on 11/12/2021 4:53:39 PM PST by ducttape45
A U.S. appeals court on Friday affirmed its decision to put on hold an order by President Joe Biden for companies with 100 workers or more to require COVID-19 vaccines, rejecting a challenge by his administration.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the ruling despite the Biden administration saying on Monday that halting implementation of the rule could lead to the deaths of dozens or even hundreds of workers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
I certainly wish for the day Wickard v. Filburn is overturned....
I wonder if we’ll see all the foom and gloom crowd in here who were convinced that the Fifth Circuit wouldn’t extend its Order.
At last drawn back. It has enbaled all sorts of overreach. What's up with federal department of education? How can that be constitutional? "Commerce" says the courts.
Legal jargon is often confusing to me. Did this court simply say, “Yeah, that’s what we ruled all right.”? They “affirmed “ their hold on the mandate.
Secondly, is this applicable to the entire country?
Let's hope they have enough sense to realize this. I'm not entirely confident many do!
This ruling encompasses the OSHA mandate that came down just recently. It doesn’t address the one regarding the military and federal workers. They basically said (and someone correct me if I’m wrong), “Hold your horses Xiden, this mandate goes way too far, it goes overboard, and you’re not giving folks the right to choose.”
The full case will actually be tried by the district court anyway, so that appeal would be heard by the Circuit court. This decision is only interlocutory, not a final order anyway.
This Order does not prevent employers from imposing a mandate on their own. Employer mandates may be subject to challenge on different grounds, but that is unaffected by this case.
This case is in Circuit court as first impression, due to statutory construct of OSHA, and maybe the OSHA/ETS combo.
So, what you are saying is it will be sent to some selected District Court. When does that happen?
It's an interesting question, although not in light of this particular ruling (OSHA, fed gov).
Question - Under what lawful authority, can an employer mandate their current employee's to ingest/inject a medicine they don't want or need?
Presumably, this would be a state issue. However, again, what state law could such a mandate fall under, and is there no limit to what medicine a company could require employee's take?
Furthermore, what if the company in question does business / have locations in more than 1 state?
I’m holding out for the mandatory shots of tequila ....
Amen to that!
Yeah, that was the poison pill that started it all. One chicken farmer under SCOTUS’ boot, and the Republic unraveled.
I only skim read the PDF, but the court seemed to hit on most of the major issues and it sounds like the Brandon admin has done a terrible jib trying to defend this disaster.
If it is such a “emergency” make them defend why they didn’t demand a mandate in early Feb during the “Holiday Surge” or waited months from announcement to posting to actual enforcement.
They can’t defend any of those.
I would love to see the reaction from the left if the Gov mandated testing and masks of the jabbed, citing the fact they can get and spread it and have no clue.
Then employers will be found legally and criminally liable if they do this on their own for any employee injured or killed.
Rest assured it will open a wave of litigation against the companies doing it.
As soon as one executive goes to prison over it then their own their crusade will cease real quick.
No they cannot legally do that. It violates the Americans For Disability Acts and the Nuremberg Code.
FWIW, I think the OSHA/ETS cases are decided and just die at the original jurisdiction, Circuit Court level.
ETS have a statutorily limited life of six months. ETS must be followed by a permanent rule. Those are litigated following the usual path starting at District Court.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46288 <- has summary of ETS cases
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.