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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court set to issue opinions This Morning on Vaccine Mandates (live thread) [update SCOTUS blocks business mandate at reply 115]
KOMOnews ^

Posted on 01/13/2022 5:33:17 AM PST by janetjanet998

ASHINGTON (TND) — The U.S. Supreme Court is set to begin issuing opinions Thursday morning.

It’s expected that among them will be a ruling on the vaccine mandate for large employers and healthcare workers.

In a special session this past Friday to hear the case, Chief Justice John Roberts remarked that the federal government has never imposed a mandate like this on private companies.

The rest of the court's conservative majority also appeared to be leaning towards opposing it.

However, they seemed to be more understanding of the requirement for healthcare workers, saying that the government can impose conditions when there's government funding involved.

Court watchers now mostly expecting a split decision.

The opinions are expected to start coming down at 10 a.m. Thursday.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mandate; scotus; vaccine; vaccinemandate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-126 next last
To: janetjanet998

Not today. We have the R number. No more opinions.


61 posted on 01/13/2022 7:02:21 AM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetjanet998

I’ll take 6-3.


62 posted on 01/13/2022 7:03:06 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (If you are vaccinated, you cannot get COVID from someone who is not vaccinated. Lighted up Karen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Karl Spooner

No opinion today on the mandate. SCOTUS seems to be punting and will let the mandate go into effect by default.


63 posted on 01/13/2022 7:03:19 AM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: All

Only one opinion released today.

Nothing more. The R number is posted.


64 posted on 01/13/2022 7:03:47 AM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CFW

They really have until February before it gets dicey.

I still think we will hear something before the end of January.


65 posted on 01/13/2022 7:04:21 AM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

I don’t. I think they are going to vote that the mandates are wrong. Doing that will start the ball rolling to get the country back on its feet. And the rats actually need that for November.


66 posted on 01/13/2022 7:05:08 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (If you are vaccinated, you cannot get COVID from someone who is not vaccinated. Lighted up Karen!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Surprised they didn’t say “No standing” and walk away.


67 posted on 01/13/2022 7:05:41 AM PST by redgolum (If this is civilization, I will be the barbarian. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

My employer (healthcare) has townhall meetings scheduled for tomorrow...


68 posted on 01/13/2022 7:06:05 AM PST by NoLongerTrappedInNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

I know people want something now, but it really is a lot to ask for a complicated decision that will affect agency law to be fully written in less than a week.

It’s pretty clear that they aren’t just going to rule on a stay, they are going to write on the merits.

The opinion will control agency law for some time to come.

Since fines aren’t being implemented until February for lack of testing, the court does have some time.


69 posted on 01/13/2022 7:07:18 AM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Not today.


70 posted on 01/13/2022 7:07:58 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Each of you have at least 1 of these in your 401k: Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck and GSK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Looks like something relating to this is what came out today. Per scotusblog...

The Court holds that civil service pensions based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under the Social Security Act.


71 posted on 01/13/2022 7:08:25 AM PST by mewzilla (Those aren't masks. They're muzzles. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: janetjanet998

I listened to some of the questions and testimony last night.

I’m not feeling hopeful.

Roberts reliably is suggesting a blanket mandate and asking why the giverment is doing enforcement agency by agency. His comment on the military made me vomit. “[never mind] the military, they just follow orders.”


72 posted on 01/13/2022 7:09:38 AM PST by Sequoyah101 (Politicians are only marginally good at one thing, being politicians. Otherwise they are fools.I ha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum

I hope your dream comes true but I ruefully doubt it will.


73 posted on 01/13/2022 7:11:12 AM PST by Sequoyah101 (Politicians are only marginally good at one thing, being politicians. Otherwise they are fools.I ha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: janetjanet998
None of the justices are going to be willing to take the heat of the state media by ruling against mandates that “protect our kids and grandma” from “murderous, unvaxxed Trumpists”

The mandates will stand ( my bet )

74 posted on 01/13/2022 7:11:34 AM PST by atc23 (The Matriarchal Society we embrace has led to masks and mandates and the cult of "safety")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Re: 69 - Thank you for injecting a dose of reality in the thread

All pretend lawyers, you can now go back to your normal activities.


75 posted on 01/13/2022 7:11:39 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

That’s not what Roberts was getting at. Going agency by agency to get around Congress is a problem.


76 posted on 01/13/2022 7:11:53 AM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

It would be easy to issue a one sentence stay with a full ruling to follow.


77 posted on 01/13/2022 7:12:44 AM PST by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: atc23
None of the justices are going to be willing to take the heat of the state media by ruling against mandates that “protect our kids and grandma” from “murderous, unvaxxed Trumpists”

Yep, that's basically it. The narrative is the reality.
78 posted on 01/13/2022 7:14:22 AM PST by Deo volente ("When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God's creation." Pres. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24
I generally agree that SCOTUS wants to take its time in weighty matters, though it's worth noting Bush v Gore's opinion came out on Dec 12, the day after oral arguments.

The other thing, is Roberts generally strives for consensus. He Martin-Quinn scores are in the middle of the pack. He *may* be using this extra time, to push for a narrow ruling to widen the yea/nay gap.

79 posted on 01/13/2022 7:16:31 AM PST by DoodleBob (Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s^2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Wizdum
The Supreme Court is about politics, not law. If they’re going to uphold universal requirements for purchasing “healthcare” they’re certainly going to uphold mandates for “saving the lives of millions of children, the people who play by the rules and protecting grandma from being murdered by selfish, murderous Trumpists”

A ruling against mandates would be suicide in the court of state media and other agitprop outlets

80 posted on 01/13/2022 7:17:11 AM PST by atc23 (The Matriarchal Society we embrace has led to masks and mandates and the cult of "safety")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-126 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