Posted on 12/17/2021 5:58:34 AM PST by TexasGurl24
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined Wednesday to hear “en banc” the case against President Joe Biden’s rule forcing large private employers to vaccinate or COVID-19 test their employees.
The Daily Wire, first to challenge the Biden mandate in the Sixth Circuit, is the lead plaintiff in the case against the federal rule after the Sixth Circuit was picked by lottery to consolidate and oversee the rule’s numerous legal challenges. The Daily Wire and others petitioned the court to hear the case “en banc,” or in front of all 16 judges on the court, for a vote on the case citing the extraordinary nature of the Biden administration’s mandate.
The full court voted 8-8 on the petition, denying the request which needed a clear 9-vote majority to proceed. Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote the majority opinion, joined by four other judges on the court, arguing that an en banc hearing on the case is unnecessary and impractical. In a dissent signed by half of the court’s judges, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton expressed deep skepticism in the Biden order’s legality, however. Moore wrote in part:
In a case as important, accelerated, and briefing-filled as this one, however, gathering all hands on deck would have strained the resources of the sixteen active judges, requiring each of us to review the voluminous record and the relevant underlying legal doctrines. What’s more, it would have done so for no discernable purpose: the case already sits before three thoughtful, independent judges on the panel who have spent the past weeks steeped in this matter. We properly leave the matter in their hands.
Three members of the court voted against granting the en banc hearing but did not join Moore’s majority opinion. The judges’ reticence to opine on the case suggests that some or all of those judges – Jane Stranch, Julia Gibbons, and Richard Griffin – may be on the three-judge panel currently overseeing the case, according to legal experts.
The unsurprising bad news. All the Clinton judges and one Obama Judges are going to side with the mandate.
Three judges were silent. Jane Stranch, Julia Gibbons, and Richard Griffin.
They may be the panel.
That means two Bush judges and one Obama judge.
Griffin has a reputation of being very conservative. The Obama judge will rubber stamp the mandate. That means Stranch probably holds the deciding vote on the panel. I don’t think she’s particularly conservative.
However, even if they rule 2-1 in favor of the mandate, the 6th Circuit would likely then take it up en banc. 8 judges wanted to now. 8 plus Griffin gets us 9 and that’s what we need to win.
Sure. They’ll change their tunes when this happens:
“brandon: Unvaxxed will ‘overwhelm’ hospitals in ‘winter of illness and death”
Or not. Dang fear mongrels. As juicy smellit would say.
Have an awesome pre Christmas weekend.
I mixed up gibbons and stranch. Reverse their names but everything else is the same.
What kind of decorations would be appropriate for a ‘winter of illness and death’?
It’s beginning to look a lot like... Christmas.
What a confusing mess this is. I’m guessing Garland is prodding this “en banc” business.
The bottom line as far as I can tell is; states that inexplicably did not sue will be entitled to the same exact relief as those that did under the exact same circumstances.
I think this is a hail mary.
En banc means the entire Sixth Circuit would hear the case.
Ordinarily it’s a three judge panel. In this case the panel is likely Griffin (Scalia mold judge) Stranch (Soyomayor type judge) and Gibbons (John Roberts type judge).
After the three judge panel, the court can hear en banc.
The petition here was the skip the three judge panel and have the whole
Court hear the case at the outset.
“In a dissent signed by half of the court’s judges, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton expressed deep skepticism in the Biden order’s legality, however.”
The Administration will file with the Supreme Court for emergency review - if it hasn't already - and my guess is that they won't take the case because there isn't a reason to do so.
The OSHA mandate is dead. Book it.
My wife is an RN in the resistor camp. She got a txt from corporate saying the mandate being on hold was on hold.
As a cynic I think they’re trying to scare people into getting the clot shot and they did the same thing the day before the initial injunction. Employees think the company knew, and did it anyway.
Unless you assign the appropriate risk and penalty to the companies for restitution of the adverse effects, the companies will not lift the mandate. It is a risk mitigation for them without any liability. Same goes for the CDC. risk must follow reward of all the patent money. States need to impose the risk as the CDC is clearly only wanting the patent and associated money from all of the processes around the covid.
I hope you are correct! You obviously know more about this than I do. BUT
This article was as clear as mud! Headline indicates a win. Yet, the people that brought the case (AGAINST mandates) are the ones asking for the full panel.
Why would they do THAT if they WON on the 3 judge panel.
Isn’t an en banc panel like an appeal if you lose at the 3 judge panel?
Very confusing for this layman.
The dissent was regarding the hearing en banc.
8 judges (half the Circuit) dissented. 5 judges wrote the “majority” opinion denying the immediate en banc hearing.
3 judges (Griffin, Stranch and Gibbons) were silent. (Almost certainly because they are on the panel).
It takes 9 judges to hear the case en banc. We only had 8. Griffin would join, he’s very conservative, but since he’s likely on the panel, he didn’t vote.
So the 5 judge opinion is actually the “majority” and the 8 judge dissent is the “minority” position.
They were trying to skip the initial 3 judge panel and go straight to en banc.
Instead, we will have a hearing in front of the three judge panel and then later en banc review if necessary.
Having Griffin on the panel is great. Stranch and Gibbons, not so much.
As a cynic I think they’re trying to scare people into getting the clot shot
Government has been outsourcing fascism since Obama at least. The Vax “private” sector mandate is just the latest chapter in that book.
If Deep State is losing the mandate, it’s because they want to lose it.
It’s a win-win for Deep State.
Deep State gets to cut its losses without losing face.
And it gives Americans the illusion that we still have a functioning court system.
They helpfully provided the circuit name for this article, but never identified the case itself. piss poor reporting IMO.
Brandon said that like that’s what he wants.
Bring it, **. I ain’t afraid of your virus.
thank God that President Trump got to partially remake the Federal courts ...
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.