Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kavanaugh asks Biden to respond to flood of vaccine mandate appeals, SCOTUS set to take up high-stakes case
Fox Business ^ | 12/20/21 | Tyler Olson

Posted on 12/20/2021 10:41:41 AM PST by conservative98

The appeals went to Kavanaugh because of geography – he oversees emergency appeals from the Sixth Circuit.

The Supreme Court is not considering the full validity of the OSHA ETS on vaccines. It is only considering whether to temporarily halt the implementation of the rule while litigation in lower courts decides the issue on the merits. If the rule goes into effect when the Biden administration wants it to, tens of millions of workers in businesses across the country will be subject to the mandate and forced to either get a vaccination or submit to a weekly COVID testing regime.

Kavanaugh set a deadline of 4 p.m. Dec. 30 for the Biden administration to respond to the appeals. It is possible the court will then take action on the case early in 2022

(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 6thcircuit; 6thcircuitjustice; biden; brettkavanaugh; brettthesquish; circuitjustice; federalistsociety; kavanaugh; kavanaughthesquish; mcconnelljudge; mcconnellsquish; osha; scotus; sixthcircuit; trumpjudge; vaccinemandate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last
To: conservative98
"It’s in the Supreme Court’s hands now."

Oh joy. 🙄

21 posted on 12/20/2021 11:09:42 AM PST by Pajamajan ( PRAY FOR OUR NATION. NEVER be a peaceful quiet slave in a new socialist America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: conservative98
Freepers should step back and understand the intricacies of Federal court proceedings before they weigh in on this development. Various Supreme Court justices have gotten a lot of crap about recent COVID-related rulings that haven’t gone the way we’d like. It’s important to note what exactly these cases involved. In almost every one I can recall (including this one), a justice -- or the Supreme Court -- has been asked to issue an emergency ruling in a case that hasn’t yet worked its way through the Federal courts.

The Supreme Court rarely issues rulings like this. That’s because an emergency injunction or court order is only applicable when two conditions are met:

1. The court believes the person or group requesting the order is likely to prevail when the case is ultimately decided in a court of law.

2. The case involves a situation where an immediate ruling is necessary because the person or group requesting the order would suffer irreparable harm if they have to wait for the case to proceed through the courts.

The Supreme Court rarely issues these emergency orders for one simple reason: Even if the justice or the court agrees with the plaintiff under Condition #1 above, these cases rarely involve situations where the remedy is needed under Condition #2.

That may very well be what happens here, folks.

22 posted on 12/20/2021 11:09:48 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("All lies and jest; still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative98
Kavanaugh, or if it goes to the full Supreme Court, should force the drug companies to first release the full data (they're holding back for 50 yrs?). If they rule for Biden, they could be held accountable for who knows how many deaths, because they forced this on people.

The left doesn't care about our rights ( text messages phone records….) the Supreme Court better. 🙏🙏🙏

23 posted on 12/20/2021 11:11:11 AM PST by Linda Frances (Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“The so-called vaccines do not prevent the spread of covid.

There is no justification for making them mandatory”.

That’s the bottom line.


24 posted on 12/20/2021 11:16:54 AM PST by laplata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: laplata
“The so-called vaccines do not prevent the spread of covid. There is no justification for making them mandatory”. That’s the bottom line.

Yep, mandates are unlawful here.

25 posted on 12/20/2021 11:18:56 AM PST by 1Old Pro (Let's make crime illegal again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The so-called vaccines do not prevent the spread of covid.
There is no justification for making them mandatory.

Indeed, whether those medications have been subjected to a well-established clinical verification process and qualify as a vaccine seems a threshold issue. That process ought to include a finding the medication substantially interrupted the spread of the illness without significant or serious side effects.

(Fortunately, the medical profession and court cases almost certainly have the language of the test already drafted.)

The next issue may be whether the government has the right to force its citizens regardless of age to serve as a petri dish for the testing of experimental drugs. (See Germany, 1930-40.)

26 posted on 12/20/2021 11:20:32 AM PST by frog in a pot (Which came first, the honest politician or the informed voter?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Even more than that ...

Using an OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard to compel people to make permanent changes to their bodies is an outrageous violation of everything a free nation is supposed to stand for.

It's like forcing construction workers to have hard hats surgically attached to their heads for the rest of their lives even if they only work on a construction site for one or two summers while they're in college.

27 posted on 12/20/2021 11:20:48 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("All lies and jest; still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

Once upon a time this was a no brain.
G’mint has no business coercing people into getting an experimental shot.
Not to mention it is discriminatory. How can some people be exempt,while others aren’t, if this virus is so deadly?


28 posted on 12/20/2021 11:21:42 AM PST by Leep (Freedom: "What's the big deal" -joe biden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

There is no wording in any passed and signed law, including the OSHA Act, giving authority to mandate a vaccination. A hard hat or other protective gear mandated for use at the work place can be removed at the end of the shift when the worker goes home. How do I put a vaccination in stowage at the work place when I go home?


29 posted on 12/20/2021 11:22:11 AM PST by USCG SimTech ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

Kavanaugh...was in on the Vince Foster coverup.


30 posted on 12/20/2021 11:25:37 AM PST by Osage Orange (1961 VW Two Door Truck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlueStateRightist
Trump didn't....and maybe he took bad advice. And maybe the whole nomination process was corrupted....

Because Kavanaugh...was in on the Vince Foster coverup.

31 posted on 12/20/2021 11:27:37 AM PST by Osage Orange (1961 VW Two Door Truck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Osage Orange

Trump didn’t....and maybe he took bad advice. And maybe the whole nomination process was corrupted....

Because Kavanaugh...was in on the Vince Foster coverup.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kavanaugh was on SC ken starr’s investigation team that whitewashed whitewater.


32 posted on 12/20/2021 11:32:43 AM PST by thinden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

And emergency use part of the drug and mandates are a little hard to argue b/c COVID has been with us for 2 years.


33 posted on 12/20/2021 11:37:17 AM PST by vivenne (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

If abortion pills can be delivered by mail and self-administered .... then why can’t they do the same with the clot-shots?


34 posted on 12/20/2021 11:38:09 AM PST by Honest Nigerian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; TexasGurl24

So what happens next here?


35 posted on 12/20/2021 11:39:17 AM PST by MNJohnnie (They would have abandon leftism to achieve sanity. Freeper Olog-hai)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

Yep.


36 posted on 12/20/2021 11:41:04 AM PST by laplata
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Leep

The unequal application part is what I don’t get—if COVID is a serious threat that can be spread by un-vaccinated people (their belief) than why does Congress/WH/illegal aliens get a pass??? If this part is not addressed by the plaintiffs I wonder how it will play out.


37 posted on 12/20/2021 11:41:33 AM PST by vivenne (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
I think there are two options:

1. Kavanaugh grants the temporary restraining order while the Supreme Court takes the case.

2. Kavanaugh denies the temporary restraining order and life goes on while the challenges to the OSHA mandate go through the normal Supreme Court review process ... which might mean it doesn't take the case until next session (starting October 2022).

In the meantime, I can tell you what THIS business owner has done, even though my company isn't big enough to meet the 100-employee OSHA threshold: I've terminated the lease on my office space and moved my company to a 100% work-from-home operation.

OSHA will have no say in my operation because I no longer have a "work place."

The only loser in this deal was my former commercial landlord.

Meanwhile, 2020 was the best year my company ever had ... and 2021 is already even better.

38 posted on 12/20/2021 11:44:49 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("All lies and jest; still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: conservative98
The Supreme Court is not considering the full validity of the OSHA ETS on vaccines. It is only considering whether to temporarily halt the implementation of the rule while litigation in lower courts decides the issue on the merits.

The Roberts SCOTUS is the same one that determined that the CDC suspending contract law as it applies to leases was illegal and unconstitutional but allowed it to continue because it was already started.

Current SCOTUS justices: a third are communists, a third are pure political hacks, and a third are jurists who care about the constitution.

39 posted on 12/20/2021 11:52:30 AM PST by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vivenne

Most of these posts refer to it as a vaccination.
Are we unaware of what a vaccination is?
Look it up.
What they are is injections.
Not vaccinations.
Good Grief!!!


40 posted on 12/20/2021 11:58:30 AM PST by Deo et patriae (Make America Great again! rantings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson