Please Support FR
Click The Pic To Donate.
Posted on 12/18/2021 2:51:10 PM PST by ducttape45
More than two dozen businesses have filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court late on Friday night after a federal appeals court allowed Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration to resume its vaccine mandate on large employers.
“Twenty-seven business groups swiftly responded to the decision late Friday, filing an appeal to the Supreme Court to block the mandate,” Politico reported. “They argued the OSHA rule would ‘harm’ thousands of businesses across industries.”
The appeal says:
It will impose substantial, nonrecoverable compliance costs on those businesses. Those businesses will be faced with either incurring the costs of testing for the millions of employees who refuse to be vaccinated—and passing those costs on to consumers in the form of yet higher prices at a time of record inflation—or imposing the costs of testing upon their unvaccinated employees, who will quit en masse rather than suffer additional testing costs each week.
The businesses took the fight to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit ruled 2-1 late on Friday that the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to could resume enforcement.
“Recognizing that the ‘old normal’ is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there,” wrote Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, for the majority. “In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.”
Immediately following the release of the OSHA vaccine mandate, The Daily Wire was the first major company to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration, as the company noted in a report last month:
The lawsuit does not take a position on whether someone should receive the vaccine or not, only against Biden’s mandate, announced earlier this year and unveiled on Thursday morning. The mandate applies to all companies with 100 or more employees and forces those businesses to police the vaccine status of their employees. The Daily Wire, with over 100 employees, falls under the mandate.
The Daily Wire’s lawsuit seeks to overturn Biden’s executive action, arguing that the order is unconstitutional and that the Biden administration violated federal law in drafting it.
Jeremy Boreing, co-founder and co-CEO of The Daily Wire, explained the company’s decision, saying, “We’re not the enforcement arm of the federal government.”
“Forcing Americans to choose between their livelihoods and their freedom is a grotesque abuse of power and we won’t be a party to it,” Boreing added. “We will not incur the cost of implementing this testing regime. We will not incur the liability of inserting ourselves into the private health decisions and information of our employees. Our company was founded to stand against tyranny, and we will.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a stay shortly after the vaccine mandate was imposed on large companies, citing potential “grave statutory and constitutional” issues with the mandate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wrote:
Before the court is the petitioners’ emergency motion to stay enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s November 5, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (the “Mandate”) pending expedited judicial review.
Because the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate, the Mandate is hereby STAYED pending further action by this court.
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals criticized the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, saying:
In reaching its decision to stay the ETS, the Fifth Circuit generally forecasted that the ETS faced fatal statutory and constitutional issues, then concluded that the Petitioners had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. … the Fifth Circuit found that individuals, states, and employers would be “substantially burdened” due to the compliance costs, loss of constitutional freedom, and intrusion into States’ “constitutionally reserved police power.” … Without addressing any of OSHA’s factual explanations or its supporting scientific evidence concerning harm, the Fifth Circuit summarily concluded that “a stay will do OSHA no harm whatsoever” and “a stay is firmly in the public interest.”
As The Daily Wire noted, after a lengthy discussion of OSHA’s claimed statutory authority to implement such a mandate, Stranch writes of the “Major Questions Doctrine,” which was brought up by the petitioners.
“The major questions doctrine is inapplicable here, however, because OSHA’s issuance of the ETS is not an enormous expansion of its regulatory authority,” Stranch writes. “OSHA has regulated workplace health and safety on a national scale since 1970, including controlling the spread of disease.”
“The ETS is not a novel expansion of OSHA’s power; it is an existing application of authority to a novel and dangerous worldwide pandemic,” Stranch continues.
“ employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.”
An outright bald faced lie.
L
In the midst of the omicron rampage and the ongoing threat of court packing, suspect Roberts will try to find a way to uphold the mandate. He got very creative when he upheld Obamacare.
If their argument is how much it cost, they lose. The reason you go to the Supreme Court is to argue that it is unconstitutional, otherwise you are completely wasting everybody’s time. So the question is, is the Mandate constitutional or is it not constitutional. What does the Constitution say?
p
Biden’s mandates are taking a huge toll on a lot of talented people being discharged because of them, even to include the Military.
That’s the plan my friend
Like trying to stop the Holocaust, ya think?
This isn’t going to work. Its going to take ...
Ironically, the strongest legal argument to be made against these mandates may be found in the “right of privacy” fabricated in the penumbras of Roe v. Wade. using an Emergency TEMPORARY Standard to compel people to make permanent changes to their bodies is as clear a violation of the basic founding principles of this nation as anything you’ll see. Forcing people to take an experimental drug — or ANY medical treatment with permanent effects, for that matter — as a condition of employment is no different than forcing a construction worker to have a safety helmet surgically attached to his head for the rest of his life.
Please Support FR
Click The Pic To Donate.
OSHA -—> SINO
[Safety In Name Only (and a chink in the armor of the US against the WuHu Flu)]
Any challenge to the mandate will lose at the SC. They’ve signaled more than once they support mandates. Thank you Amy and Brett.
Thank you for posting allendale. In case you haven't seen the following material about Obamacare you might find it interesting.
Chief Justice Roberts might have gotten the short-term results that he wanted concerning Court's decision that Obamacare is constitutional. But I don't see how the Court's decision is going to stand the test of time.
More specifically, Obamacare is not the first time that the Supreme Court has addressed the constitutionality of a national healthcare program. In fact, the misguided Roberts Court seems to have overlooked (blatantly ignored?) that several generations of respected constitutional experts, including Supreme Court justices, had clarified that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the power to establish a national healthcare program.
In fact, let's start with President Thomas Jefferson's writing that the feds have no express constitutional power to dictate policy for INTRAstate healthcare, a couple of justices seemingly borrowing wording from his clarification.
"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."
"Many are the exercises of power reserved to the States wherein a uniformity of proceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, health laws [emphasis added], regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, etc., etc." —Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807.
”State inspection laws, health laws [emphasis added], and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embrace every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation, though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
From the congressional record, clarification by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of the 14th Amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
"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.
So does Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers say anything about intrastate healthcare?
Nope.
Regarding unconstitutional federal interference in 10th Amendment-protected state healthcare policy, let's consider something that lawless Speaker Pelosi didn't do that's arguably much worse than irresponsibly ramming unconstitutional Obamacare through the House imo. Pelosi wrongly ignored that former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. had repeatedly introduced an Article V resolution to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states, Jackson's resolution wrongly ignored both before and after Pelosi irresponsibly rammed the unread, undebated, unconstitutional Obamacare bill through the House.
If Pelosi had first successfully petitioned the states to ratify a proposed healthcare amendment to the Constitution as a result of Rep. Jackson Jr.'s resolution, then I wouldn't be making this post. But given all the expert clarifications that Congress has no enumerated constitutional power to establish something like Obamacare, she scandalously chose to ignore his resolution imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Roger that, and I totally agree. God help this nation when that happens.
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.