Posted on 01/14/2022 4:21:32 AM PST by JonPreston
Terrible. Trump would have been better to appoint Lee and Cruz
Kavanaugh definitely was NOT worth the fight we had to seat this little weasel!!! Gorsuch has really surprised me I had doubts about him but I was WRONG and very happy to say I was wrong!! Barrett is still out for my judgement we will see!!!
This is a dangerous precedent both in terms of clearly being a direct violation of the Bill of Rights as well as in terms of granting a powerful new unilateral authority to the executive branch and its myriad bureaucracies which the legislative branch has no say. The Constitution was expressly designed to prevent such a consolidation of power into one branch of government which has already achieved significant new power through the use of "executive orders".
Almost all tyrannical actions are supported by "a good reason" ... and Kavanaugh, be a learned man and all, must know this! This man, a man I supported fully throughout his confirmation hearings, is on his way to becoming this generation's David Souter ... a sad thing for the concepts of honor and integrity ... and a tragic thing for our American Republic.
I heard that. It was quick and I laughed.
We should have donated this sucker to Christine Balsey Ford.
Hey MG I think that is Kavanaugh with Rove!!!!
“Riddled with drugs and very healthy in one sentence. You’ve reduced yourself to a ridiculous argument. No one can take you serious”
Keith Richards, Steven Tyler etc. Tyler was on a daily heroin and cocaine habit from mid 1970’s to early 2000s when her finally went clean. People take illegal drugs for decades. It’s the overdoses and overuse that kill you.
You can be very healthy as in no cancers/diabetes etc and still be a lifetime drug user. That is what I meant.
The living homeless people tend to be very hardy. The sick and unhealthy ones die early on.
I see Kavanaugh as a little frat boy running around kissing Roberts ass!! Getting in good with the Chief!!! SPIT when I think of the UTTER FIGHT we went through to seat him it makes me sick!!!
He cried. Also there was the beer thing. Dumb comments all around regarding that at those hearings.
Oh Gawd, he had a couple few beers. Hide the women! Bretts a comin’.
Amazing
Your reaching......
Geez, still early I guess.....s/b 'you're'
Can you issue an Executive Order that all Freepers on this thread must read them before engaging in debate?
From wonderful Justice Thomas’s dissent:
“We presume that Congress does not hide “fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague or ancillary provisions.” Yet here, the Government proposes to find virtually unlimited vaccination power, over millions of healthcare workers, in definitional provisions, a saving clause, and a provision regarding long-term care facilities’ sanitation procedures....Had Congress wanted to grant CMS power to impose a vaccine mandate across all facility types, it would have done what it has done elsewhere—specifically authorize one.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
1. The OSHA mandate was overturned because it was correctly determined to be an abuse of the Federal government's power as a regulatory body (through OSHA).
2. The CMS mandate was upheld because it wasn't really a case about government power as a regulatory body. Instead, it involved the Federal government's role as the "customer/client" in a relationship with health care facilities (through Medicare and Medicaid).
The difference may seem subtle, but from a legal standpoint it is huge. The Supreme Court basically determined (and they are on fairly strong legal ground here) that the CMS case was ultimately about contract law, not constitutional law.
Something else to keep in mind here is that in both cases, the legal challenges were based on constitutional questions related to the EMPLOYERS, not the EMPLOYEES. What this means is that the whole issue of vaccine mandates is not about the rights of employees (that would be a separate legal challenge), but about the limitations of government power over private-sector employers.
See Post #74. The ruling did NOT say that the government mandate applies to a group as broad as "healthcare workers." It applies to healthcare workers who work in facilities that contract with the Federal government as providers of Medicare and Medicaid health services.
The argument that "Congress never authorized the executive branch to do this" is applicable to the OSHA case, but not the CMS case. Congress generally doesn't sign contracts with private-sector companies. Instead, it appropriates Federal funds and then vests an executive branch department (the Department of Health and Human Services, in this case) with: (1) the authority to sign the contracts, and (2) a lot of discretion in including various terms and conditions in those contracts.
LOL I wish. That's a mandate I'd support. Maybe pass a comprehension test as well.
Sort of a knowledge passport before posting. But if we applied that to other issues, then I'd have to read the articles before posting. And that's a no go.
he’s still afraid that if he doesn’t toe the liberal line, they will impeach him. Barrett isn’t much better.
“At oral argument, the Government largely conceded that [these sections of law] alone do not authorize the omnibus rule. Instead, it fell back on a constellation of statutory provisions that each concern one of the 15 types of medical facilities that the rule covers....
The Government has not made a strong showing that this hodgepodge of provisions authorizes a nationwide vaccine mandate. We presume that Congress does not hide “fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague or ancillary provisions.” Yet here, the Government proposes to find virtually unlimited vaccination power, over millions of healthcare workers, in definitional provisions, a saving clause, and a provision regarding long-term care facilities’ sanitation procedures....
Had Congress wanted to grant CMS power to impose a vaccine mandate across all facility types, it would have done what it has done elsewhere—specifically authorize one.” - Justice Thomas in dissent
I disagree.
The FIRST argument raised by the Court majority was MEDICAL.
From the Decision:
Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that "the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services. COVID-19 is a highly contagious, dangerous, and - especially for Medicare and Medicaid patients - deadly disease."
It is possible that medical argument could have prevailed for the original disease and the first variants.
But, Omicron?
No way. With Omicron, the vaccinated probably have more symptomatic infections, and more viral shedding, than the 150 million Americans who have natural Killer T-Cell immunity.
Many thanks, Trump Girl !
My pet peeve is photos posted on FR with no identification whatsoever of who they are. I wish I knew what everybody looks like, but I don't....and Kavanaugh really looked goofy as heck on that picture, LOL.
Thanks, again !
Leni
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.