Saturday, January 15, 2022

About this government regulation issue...

The left is beside themselves over the USSC after they stayed the OSHA vaccine mandates that the Biden Administration was pushing for:

Everything from reasonable
What the majority is really saying, then, is that it doesn’t like how much power Congress gave to OSHA in the first place. The question of whether Congress can delegate its lawmaking powers to executive branch agencies has been debated for decades. But since the 1930s, the court has basically allowed Congress to give agencies rulemaking power under Article I’s “Necessary and Proper” clause, in part on the theory that courts lack the kind of expertise that agencies have. Moreover, even though they are not elected, agency employees answer to someone who is accountable to voters: the president.

To this 

That’s the point, you hacks. That’s the motherfcking point. That’s why you have as many restrictions as you do in your own workplace. Do these obvious space aliens believe that, once an employee leaves the workplace, the employee will turn into a two-headed zombie monster? Wait, don’t answer that. You will note that the majority opinion is unsigned. Perhaps the second-graders who actually wrote this mess are still unclear as to how to spell their last names. As for the actual justices who declined to attach their names? Well, you get what you pay for.

Either way they look at it (with reasonableness or flat out anger) the left really sees this as an attack on regulations or possibly even a slippery slope preview of things to come. The left has always argued for more power to be given to the unelected Federal agencies while the right has always wanted to reign in that power of what is known in certain circles to be the "deep state". The historical reality has been an expanding power given to agencies that are only slapped back on occasion when it seems obvious that they went to far. 

Moreover, this is part of where the left has been going in general. When the USSC was more liberal, they bypassed congressional law to get things like abortion, gay marriage, and many other hot topic issues codified in their favor by the courts. But now that the USSC is basically a 5.5-3.5 conservative majority, this is no longer a valid strategy. Instead you see the left push for expanded power of Governors (which was seen during Covid and in the 2020 elections) and the various state and federal agencies for the same reasons. As the saying goes, never let a good crisis go wasted. 

But like it or not, the liberal agenda has not been, is not currently, and will likely not be in the foreseeable future popular enough to get it passed legitimately through Congress as actual law. So liberals need an alternative.

Either way a medical mandate forcing a medical decision on Americans does not seem logically to be something that OSHA should be regulating. At least not if you take a good look at what OSHA was really created to do. OSHA is about making sure that there are not dangerous machinery being used without proper safety precautions, or regulating whether or not steel toed boots are required in a particular agency. They cannot otherwise regulate machinery employees use outside of the workforce or force someone to wear steel toed boots outside of the work environment. Doesn't matter if those employees are performing dangerous actions outside of work, as that is not OSHA's responsibility to regulate.  The idea has always been to make sure employers are providing a safe work environment and that employees are following safety regulations while at the workplace. OSHA does not and should never be allowed to impose regulations on employees that are not specific to their workplace environment. Medical mandates regarding vaccinations are definitely not specific to workplace.

Now there have been several arguments about school vaccines where liberals have argued that children are already mandated to get several shots or vaccines before enrolling in classes. But if OSHA had the authority to do similar things as a matter of employer employee safety, you might believe that other vaccines would have been similar mandated as a matter of employment. But to date, there has been no other attempts by OSHA to mandate to employers that they cannot hire anyone without a particular vaccination. Obviously certain employers "could" legally make a vaccine (or something similar) if they felt it important for that line of work. But that is different than the Government forcing them to mandate such a thing to their employees, especially when the criteria is something fairly arbitrary such as 100 employees. 

At the end of the day, these agencies have continued to expand their power to a degree that is likely well outside the original intent. There are just going to be certain things that should require congress to pass as a law, rather than an agency to decide as if they have absolute executive authority. When the issue is a requirement for tens of millions of Americans to make a particular medical decision, then I think that this is better suited to require a Congressional action, not a decision by an unelected agency worker.  And if this is a sign of a slippery slope ruling where the courts cut deeper and deeper into agency authority, well then that is probably a good thing as well.


73 comments:

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

I suppose you are aware, are you not, that many large companies are still demanding that their employees provide proof of vaccination.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

In many cases, their employees are demanding that.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Back in what can loosely be termed reality, here are some striking statistics regarding the relation between diagnosed COVID cases and COVID fatalities. Note that these data come with huge numbers of caveats, in that the pervasiveness of testing has changed enormously over the course of the pandemic: in particular, official case numbers from the spring of 2020 are not really comparable at all to current case numbers.

Nevertheless, the entire range of these numbers over the last two years give us some sense of what has been accomplished in terms of avoiding an even bigger COVID calamity, primarily by fully — meaning at least two doses — vaccinating three quarters of the adult population, by improved treatments for COVID, and to a lesser extent by attempts to mitigate the spread of the disease, especially early on.

Seven-day moving average of official COVID cases, seven-day moving average of COVID deaths 14 days later, and the percentage of the former represented by the latter:

1/1/22. 444K

1/14/22. 1,829

0.4%

09/01/2021:  167K

09/14/2021:  1,929

1.2%

1/12/2021: 255K

1/26/21: 3,482

1.4%

04/07/20:  32K

04/21/20: 2,279

7.1%

Note that comparing the current numbers to the numbers from the crest of last fall’s waves reflects how the Omicron variant appears to be very roughly about one third as deadly as the Delta variant, although again these data are extremely approximate (It would be no surprise if 444.000 official cases per day reflects several million actual cases per day, given that home testing is generally not reflected in the official case numbers, many people with symptoms aren’t getting tested at all, and there are a lot of asymptomatic cases of Omicron).

But the biggest moving variable here of course is the vaccines. The astounding 7.1% case fatality rate from the spring of 2020, even subject to all the data caveats above, gives us some sense of what we could be looking at now if we had an unvaccinated population engaged in, as is currently the case almost everywhere in the USA, only the mildest and most inconsistent mitigation measures.

Even with three quarters of the adult population vaccinated, it’s quite likely that more than one million Americans have already died of COVID (the official total is 845,000 but this is certainly a significant undercount), while an average of nearly 2,000 more are dying every day — a number that is likely to double by the end of the month before the Omicron wave breaks, given current infection rates.


It’s worth emphasizing that, to the Republican base, none of this is real. It’s all fake news: COVID doesn’t even exist, and all the people dying of COVID are old and fat and dying anyway, and also too COVID is a deadly bioweapon created by the Chinese with the help of (((globalist))) financiers. (BTW is Fauci Jewish yet? I assume he is, or will be soon, despite the inconvenient name. That of course is not his real name).

Caliphate4vr said...

I suppose you are aware, are you not, that many large companies are still demanding that their employees provide proof of vaccination.

And no one has problems with private corporations doing so. It’s not the gubment’s job, pedo

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/01/is-donald-trump-pro-covid-enough-for-the-gop-base

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The state government of California has its own regulations system.

https://www.dsh.ca.gov/


It is allowed to impose regulations on employees that are not specific to their workplace environment. Medical mandates regarding vaccinations are definitely not specific to workplace.

It has building codes that are much more important than you can imagine.

City and county building registered don't apply to hospitals.

And Osha's regulations should apply to health related issues.


Your libertarian views would not allow government regulations on anything but voting discrimination laws designed to reduce turnout and carefully designed gerrymandering.

Anonymous said...

James, the other day you where cheering the Biden stock market and the wealth being earned by shareholders.

Care to tell us why your titanic shift?

Anonymous said...

Hi, Roger how ya doing.

C.H. Truth said...

Your libertarian views would not allow government regulations on anything but voting discrimination laws designed to reduce turnout and carefully designed gerrymandering.

Hey Reverend... when you going to chastise Mr Amick for putting words in my mouth?

C.H. Truth said...

I suppose you are aware, are you not, that many large companies are still demanding that their employees provide proof of vaccination.

I suppose had you read my post you would have seen that I am aware of this:

Obviously certain employers "could" legally make a vaccine (or something similar) if they felt it important for that line of work. But that is different than the Government forcing them to mandate such a thing to their employees, especially when the criteria is something fairly arbitrary such as 100 employees.


It would be nice (for a change) if you read before you preached.


I really take no issue with employers either requiring or not requiring this. Some employers are pushing for mandates while others are not. In fact, some employers are offering to hire employees who choose to leave or are fired for not following their company mandates. I am guessing that some employees might leave "for" a company that mandates vaccines if theirs does not. All a matter of what these individual companies and employees want to do.

What do you have against freedom of choice, Reverend? Are you one of those people who needs someone to tell you what to do 24-7?

Anonymous said...

It’s been 30 years since U.S. 10-year yields rose this much to start a year"

Bidenomics making the cost of Government much , much more.

Caliphate4vr said...

Alky, your fascists view have killed 1000’s, harmed children unimaginably, destroyed an economy, wrecked 10000’s of small business

Never in the history of man have the healthy been told to stay home so we could add a few weeks to the life expectancy of geriatrics, like you, in nursing homes

Fuck you

Anonymous said...

James, the other day you where cheering the Biden stock market and the wealth being earned by shareholders.

Care to tell us why your titanic shift?

Anonymous said...

Stop counting those dying under Biden.

That is pure Politican Science.

Caliphate4vr said...

some employers are offering to hire employees who choose to leave or are fired for not following their company mandates. I am guessing that some employees might leave "for" a company that mandates vaccines if theirs does n<

The stupidest part of this whole argument is whether the employer does or doesn’t mandate the vax, it doesn’t preclude anyone from getting the vax

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/14/vaccine-mandates-supreme-court-biden-regulations-527154

This is the most disturbing result of this discussion.

OSHA'S authority might disappear.


Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Supreme Court Just Made an Incredible Power Grab

The ruling striking down Biden’s vaccine mandate threatens decades of statutory authority to let agencies write important regulations.


Opinion by KIMBERLY WEHLE

01/14/2022 05:00 PM EST

Kimberly Wehle is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

Thursday’s Supreme Court decision blocking the federal government’s mandate that large businesses require vaccinations or tests of their employees is being seen as a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. It is certainly that, despite the court’s split decision allowing the same mandate to remain in force for medical facilities that accept money under the Social Security Act.



How did the court’s conservative 6-3 majority pull this off?

Here’s the key passage with the court’s unsigned opinion: “Although Covid– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. Covid–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather.” Because the statute gives the Occupational Safety and Health Administration authority to enact standards “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment,” it reasoned, and Covid-19 doesn’t just spread in the workplace, OSHA acted outside its lane of authority. The vaccine-or-test mandate “draws no distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to Covid-19,” and thus cannot be enforced. “[M]ost lifeguards and lineman face the same regulations as do medics and meatpackers,” for example.

The logical flaw in the majority’s reasoning is that this line-drawing isn’t required by the actual 1970 law (the Occupational Safety and Health Act) that established OSHA. Back in 1979, the Court recognized in Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute that OSHA has “broad authority … to promulgate different kinds of standards.” Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissenting opinion thus explained: “The Standard falls within the core of the agency’s mission to ‘protect employees’ from ‘grave danger’ that comes from ‘new hazards’ or exposure to harmful agents,” as set forth in the relevant part of the OSH Act.

What the majority is really saying, then, is that it doesn’t like how much power Congress gave to OSHA in the first place.

OSHA'S authority might disappear.



C.H. Truth said...

This is known as the delegation of legislative power. Instead of keeping its lawmaking power for itself, Congress gives the executive branch the power to fill in the inevitable blanks it leaves in legislation. When executive branch agencies respond, the resulting laws are often known as “regulations.” But they function with virtually the same force of law as an act of Congress itself.

This is both an oversimplification and a description of something that might exist, but exists outside of constitutional authority. It would be one thing if the inevitable "blanks" are just smaller decisions made "within" a larger Congressional law (as in how do we enact or implement a law which is what agencies are designed to do), but this argument simply pulls authority out of "thin air" to create a new law and simply call it a regulation. There is nothing in the constitution that provides for that.

When there are particular things that may fall between the cracks because Federal law is murky or missing then our constitution delegates those issues to the States (not to unelected Federal government employees). We don't need 330 million people under the thumb of Joe Agency Worker (who is not really accountable to anyone).

Caliphate4vr said...

OSHA'S authority might disappear.

If we can gut them and the EPA.

My view of Nixon would increase

C.H. Truth said...

More from Wehle

The court’s majority opinion signals that this Supreme Court is poised to strike down an undisclosed segment of federal regulations that don’t follow express, detailed authority from Congress. And even more troubling, the court’s conservatives have apparently determined that Congress may do so only if the subject matter of the law implicates what the court deems a “major question,” a nebulous and undefined term that has no textual support in the Constitution. Because our polarized Congress is shockingly dysfunctional when it comes to substantive policy, it doesn’t bode well for the country’s legislative needs.

I certainly did not get this from the reading of the decision. There is a difference between an agency using their discretion to follow existing law and using their discretion to basically "create" a new law.

As stated in my post... if OSHA had the authority to make medical decisions for workers, then they would have done so previously. The same arguments could be used to mandate other vaccinations (such as the flu vaccine) - but OSHA never has done that. We have also never had emergency OSHA standards put into place for extreme circumstances. Whether one might consider it a "flaw" or not, expanding agency powers during an emergency (if this is considered as such) is not part of what the laws included when OSHA was established. We could technically pass a law within a few days if this was that important.

Whether liberal legal analysts want to admit it or not, this is not just OSHA doing what OSHA generally does, this was OSHA doing something completely unprecedented. They have not done anything like this in the 50 years they have been in existence. We have to accept that.

C.H. Truth said...

More from Wehle

So, there’s a looming Supreme Court threat to the viability of federal regulations as the ongoing bread-and-butter means of passing laws that span virtually every aspect of American life, from workplace safety and environmental protection to financial regulation and national child welfare. And these government actors aren’t elected or susceptible to losing their jobs at the ballot box. If a new threat to human health arises that affects workers by the millions, then Congress better have predicted the specific threat in the legislation enabling an agency to deal with it — or get its act together and pass actual emergency legislation under Article I. Of course, the horrors and unknowns of Covid-19 belie the feasibility of this option. The court is essentially saying, “Unless the states step in to address the next epic pandemic, you’re on your own, folks.”


Sorry, but there is zero logic to the idea that the "unknowns" of Covid makes passing a law (such as this mandate) something that belies feasibility. There is literally NOTHING to stop Congress from passing an emergency law to cover something like this... if the solution was overwhelmingly popular and reasonable enough to garner the support.

Again, Wehle is strawmanning the decision into something it's not. Something that makes it easier for her to argue against. There is nothing that suggests that an agency cannot make decisions as to how to implement laws. THe issue (again) is that medical mandates are not part of the OSHA law. This is new. Something Wehle and others don't want to acknowledge.

We can argue the law all we want, but at the end of the day this sort of mandate is not overwhelmingly popular. From poll to poll the numbers appear to be split as to whether or not a worker "mandate" should be implemented.

The issue liberals have is that they know they do not have the support to get this passed through congress, so like everything else with liberals, they want to figure out a way to jam it down everyone's throats. Whether that be "carving out an exception to the filibuster" to empowering an agency with powers they do not have... it's about getting "around" the constitution to push their own policies.


But she is correct... States have powers in this situation that our Federal Government does not. You want everyone to wear a mask. Move to Washington. You want to walk around without a mask. Move to a state that has no mandate.

Anonymous said...


KansasDemocrat January 14, 2022 at 10:43 AM

Too Funny how Alky envy those of us that hold a College Degree.

He has lived a life of regrets.
Zero accomplishments.

ReplyDelete

Roger AmickJanuary 14, 2022 at 10:49 AM

My life isn't over kputz




What big things do you have planned this year?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The deep state conspiracy theorists are getting crazier and day

On January 6, Epps is seen prominently on video footage again.  He arrived on the Capitol grounds while President Donald Trump’s speech was still underway.  He again spent much of his time shouting to the crowd and encouraging them to enter the Capitol.  It even appeared that he may have some involvement in coordinating the breach.  He is seen speaking to one protester, who then removed barriers and “no trespassing” signs.  He is also seen talking to another protester, telling him he can’t take a can of bear spray into the Capitol.  That man was later involved in the actual breach of the Capitol doors.  Epps also encouraged protesters to stay away from the police.  It was obvious he wanted the Capitol breached, but he wanted no casualties on either side.  Throughout January 6, Epps appeared to be giving orders, that others seemed to be following.

Initially, the FBI included a photo of Ray Epps on its “Most Wanted” list, identifying him only as suspect 16.  Left-wing groups, including Antifa, jumped into action to help the FBI locate and prosecute the “Trump-supporting traitors.”  They quickly verified that Ray Epps was suspect 16, located his address, compiled as much background information as was available, and provided it to the FBI.  Was Epps arrested?  Nope.  Was his property searched?  Not as far as we know.  On July 1, the FBI quietly removed him from its “Most Wanted” list.  Curious, no?

The deep state is behaving like any other criminal enterprise.  Success leads to hubris and their adventures get bolder and bolder. 

The deep state has already affected an election outcome.  How swollen do you suppose their ego has become?  But eventually, hubris meets nemesis.  They go too far.  They take too many chances and are exposed.  Was January 6 the operation that went too far?  Was stealing an election not enough?  Did they have to discredit all conservatives as well?  Was conducting their caper in front of hundreds of thousands of Americans, and thousands of video cameras, just a bit too bold?

We don’t know if Ray Epps will be the key to exposing a deep state conspiracy.  But, the circumstances of his involvement in January 6 beg for a serious inquiry -- as opposed to the clown show San Fran Nan is currently running.  Hopefully, when the next Congress is sworn in, Ted Cruz will get to do some more palpating -- with subpoenas in hand this time.


John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho


Anonymous said...

A year in to O'Biden's term it is the continuation of Barracks Lost Years.

"
CPI (year-over-year)Dec. 7.0%.

No plan.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/is_ray_epps_the_key.html

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

To this plagiarism source.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38768714/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-decision/

anonymous said...

The left is beside themselves over the USSC after they stayed the OSHA vaccine mandates that the Biden Administration was pushing for:

I for one did not know that the SCOTUS were experts in medicine and vaccines. If they had any sense, they would apply what they allowed for government employees stand for the whole country.....But since they are legislating from the bench, they make idiots like LIl Schitty and rats hole happy by going against good science and medicine. Thanx Jowls for stealing the court with the rules you made up....especially the one about the last year in office rule and than ignoring that when it suited you!!!!!!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The three appointees may weaken the federal government's authority on almost everything else.



In the OSHA decision, this was reflected in the court’s concern with the novelty of what OSHA was doing. It was a “telling indication” of overreach, the court wrote, that never in its 50-year history had OSHA adopted such a “broad public health regulation.”

These words—and similar statements in other recent high-court decisions—should worry agencies looking to make creative uses of old statutes, as in the case of the Federal Trade Commission. A cornerstone of FTC Chair Lina Khan’s “competition” agenda is deploying a rule-making power the agency hasn’t used in half a century—which many authorities believe the FTC doesn’t possess at all.

Also in the backdrop to Thursday’s decision was the “major questions doctrine,” an important counterweight to the authority agencies gained under the Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That ruling established that courts should generally defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes; it expanded agencies’ ability to make and change the law. But the major questions doctrine, which Supreme Court rulings have cited with increasing frequency in the past decade, holds that some decisions are too important to be made without clear authorization by the people’s elected representatives. As the court said in the OSHA case, quoting last summer’s invalidation of the president’s eviction moratorium, “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic or political reasons .



Many have remarked that the president’s legislative agenda is too big for his slim majorities in Congress. The OSHA ruling shows how the president’s regulatory ambition suffers a similar problem: Often, rules now in the works will prove too grandiose for the courts that eventually will review them.

Mr. Scalia is an employment and regulatory lawyer. He served as U.S. labor secretary, 2019-21.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

What the Supreme Court’s OSHA Ruling Means - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-supreme-courts-osha-ruling-means-vaccine-testing-mandate-covid-khan-biden-ftc-administrative-state-chevron-11642199704

Caliphate4vr said...

About damn time, I’m still wondering how the CDC had the authority to suspend rent

anonymous said...

What really makes me wonder about the legislating coming from the Trump court, is that having either testing or the shot pretty well covered everything.....Not forcing a shot for the deniers and replacing it with a test seemed a realitively sane approach to protect the country.. Instead in their infinite you can't make me do it ruling.....ruled the mandates invalid in spite of clear evidence it would save lives....IOW's conservatives only worry about the unborn and fuck the living!!!!!!! Sad this country is going to hell in trumps image and the silence of the right to lifers is deafening!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Upholding the US Constitution has the Three Socialist Stoogrs triggered.

anonymous said...

Describe how the mandate ruling upheld the constitution......I won't hold my breath since you have no fucking clue!!!!!!!

anonymous said...

"Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category," the unsigned opinion in the businesses case says.


The only thing the decision protects are fucking assholes like you who deny science!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Anonymous said...

Denny on the subject of wood heat , why did you attack the poor and those in Vermont?

Montpelier temp today - 3°F.

anonymous said...

Yes.....wood heat is used by the poor who cannot afford a modern home,,,,,,,people like you!!!!!!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

OT but I don't think that the federal government will indict Trump. But if he is convinced for tax evasion, he can't be the President.

The Justice Department’s decision to charge Oath Keepers with seditious conspiracy last week makes clear that prosecutors consider the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol part of an organized assault to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power.
But so far the department does not appear to be directly investigating the person whose desperate bid to stay in office motivated the mayhem — former president Donald Trump — either for potentially inciting a riot or for what some observers see as a related pressure campaign to overturn the results of the election.
The House select committee on Jan. 6 is investigating both matters, separate from the Justice Department, and has aggressively pursued information about Trump and those closest to him. But FBI agents have not, for example, sought to interview or gather materials from some of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants about their strategy sessions at the Willard hotel on how to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to participants in those meetings or their representatives.
The department has not reached out to the Georgia secretary of state’s office about Trump urging its leader to “find” enough votes to reverse his defeat, a person familiar with the office said, even as a local district attorney investigates that matter.

The Trump campaign has not received requests for documents or interviews from the FBI or Justice Department related to Jan. 6 or the effort to overturn the election results, and federal prosecutors have not sought to interview those with knowledge of Trump’s consideration of a plan to install an attorney general more amenable to his unfounded claims of massive voter fraud, according to people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department inspector general is investigating the aborted plan and could ultimately ask prosecutors to consider whether crimes were committed.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has vowed to hold accountable all those responsible for the Jan. 6 riot — whether they were at the Capitol or committed related crimes. “The actions we have taken thus far will not be our last,” Garland said in a Jan. 5 speech marking the anniversary of the Capitol breach.


But some legal analysts say they worry Garland might be moving too cautiously.
“The other shoe has yet to drop — that is: When will the Justice Department promptly and exhaustively investigate the part of the coup attempt that I believe came perilously close to ending American constitutional democracy, basically, without a drop of blood?” said Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar and outspoken Trump critic. That's not a surprise.

But


A spokesman for the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office, which is leading the criminal investigation, declined to comment. A spokesman for Garland pointed to the recent speech, in which the attorney general said the department would “follow the facts” and “must speak through our work.” A spokesman for Trump did not respond to requests for comment.


Washington Post news

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The Justice Dept. alleged Jan. 6 was a seditious conspiracy. Now will it investigate Trump?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-jan-6-investigation-garland/2022/01/15/e55a3ca2-7555-11ec-b202-b9b92330d4fa_story.html

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

That’s the point, you hacks. That’s the motherfcking point. That’s why you have as many restrictions as you do in your own workplace. Do these obvious space aliens believe that, once an employee leaves the workplace, the employee will turn into a two-headed zombie monster? Wait, don’t answer that. You will note that the majority opinion is unsigned. Perhaps the second-graders who actually wrote this mess are still unclear as to how to spell their last names. As for the actual justices who declined to attach their names? Well, you get what you pay for.

To this plagiarism source.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38768714/supreme-court-vaccine-mandate-decision/

anonymous said...

Blogger KansasDemocrat said...
Denny on the subject of wood heat , why did you attack the poor and those in Vermont?

Why are you an unemployed dumb fuck who can't afford to heat his home.......BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Trump canceled an event in Arizona, mainly, because responsible Republicans have called him out of the big lie! Republicans from my home state and the mid west are not cultist like Governor Noem!

"Trump has also recently clashed with Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on the question of voter fraud in the last presidential election," the report adds, "Trump's continued insistence that the last election suffered from fraud has led to recent clashes with Republican senators. Senator Mike Rounds told ABC News on January 9 that the last election was 'fair, as fair as we have seen" and that the GOP "simply did not win.' In response, Trump asked if Rounds was 'crazy or just stupid.' His comments in turn led to responses from McConnell and Senators Kevin Cramer (R-ND), John Thune (R-SD) and Mitt Romney (R-UT), who all expressed support for Rounds."

Add to that, Arizona Gov Doug Ducey (R) --who has previously run afoul of Trump -- two days before the former president's visit to the state to suggest he may jump into the GOP Senate primary against Trump's wishes.

C.H. Truth said...


I for one did not know that the SCOTUS were experts in medicine and vaccines.


Well neither is the Department of Labor or OSHA (which falls under the DOL umbrella). OSHA is designed to inspect businesses for health and safety hazards. They are not designed to make medical decisions for employees.

The USSC are experts on constitutional law, which is the issue that was before them.



Now not sure where I heard this before... but some people might argue that it's my body my choice. At least for some medical decisions.

I am also pretty sure that we have a precedent on record (Roe v Wade) where the medical decisions between a doctor and patient are supposed to be protected under what they determined was a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The argument under that precedent is that the Government cannot interfere with that medical privacy.

So it would be inconsistent of the court to ignore the precedent established that there is a right to privacy as it pertains to decisions on medical issues.

Unless you think Roe v Wade should be overturned and the Government can then make laws and regulations to restrict or force medical decisions on people?



Either way... a person's own medical doctor is the MOST qualified to help you make a decision about something like a vaccine. Not people who inspect building for asbestos or double check to make sure workers are wearing the proper safety goggles.

Try again, Denny.

C.H. Truth said...


To this plagiarism source.


Hey moron... do you understand what blockquotes mean?

It means someone else wrote it...

are you really that stupid? Oh wait, C+ student with a barely average SAT score... falling in aptitude from dementia. Probably.

Anonymous said...

why did you attack the poor and those in Vermont?

Denny admits he attacked the poor and Vermont residents, however .

Vermont per capita income does not out them in your "poor" status.

Denny , you didn't actually answer my question, because you simply don't have the mental fire power .

anonymous said...

Well neither is the Department of Labor or OSHA (which falls under the DOL umbrella)


God you are dumbing down by the day Lil Schitty!!!! Osha was given the task at protecting the health of workers and protecting them from COVID clearly falls under that umbrella!!!!!! Sorry sport....you truly are damaged goods!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! BTW.....where in the constitution does gave the SCOTUS the ability to legislate ??????

anonymous said...

Vermont per capita income does not out them in your "poor" status.


BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! The are poor in every state including Vermont....Why do you now protect the poor when you ignore them the rest of the year by supporting the GOP??????

anonymous said...

Either way... a person's own medical doctor is the MOST qualified to help you make a decision about something like a vaccine.

Try again Lil Schitty.....The mandate was for either a test or a vax.......I did not know you needed privacy from a Dr to take a swab you flaming asshole!!!!! Your bullshit on Roe v Wade was as a dumb comparison as you have evah posted!!!!!!!

C.H. Truth said...

Osha was given the task at protecting the health of workers and protecting them from COVID clearly falls under that umbrella!!!

Whether or not that falls under their umbrella is a legal question, not a medical question.

Last time I checked we have 9 USSC justices all with JD degrees mostly from Ivy league schools who have been studying and ruling on the law for their entire careers. Six of those justices stated that it did NOT fall under their umbrella.


What qualifications do you have, Denny?

Do you have a JD from an Ivy League school?
Do you even know what that means?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Scott, this looks at it from both sides..

On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision in the case of Biden v. Missouri, allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to begin implementing a COVID-19-vaccine mandate for workers at health-care facilities that accept Medicare and Medicaid funds. The Justices signing on to the opinion were Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—the Court’s liberal nub—plus Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts. The dissenters were Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas. That mandate is expected to cover some ten million workers, and, given the Omicron surge, could hardly come soon enough. (The majority opinion mentions health-care facilities where thirty-five per cent of the workers are unvaccinated.) On the same day, though, in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Court stayed the implementation of a vaccine-or-test mandate, issued by OSHA, that would have covered an estimated eighty-four million people at companies with more than a hundred employees. The decision was 6–3; this time, Kavanaugh and Roberts switched sides. What, one might ask, was the difference?


Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

It should be noted, first of all, that neither of these decisions stands as a final ruling on the constitutionality of vaccine mandates. The basic question in both cases is whether the mandates could go into effect while challenges proceed through the lower courts. (Following the rulings, one can and the other can’t.) But the decisions give some idea of where the Court stands. The Medicare-Medicaid mandate was always seen as being on less contested ground than the OSHA rule—and this outcome was fairly clearly previewed by the Justices’ questions in oral arguments in the cases last week. An easy answer—maybe too easy—about why that mandate’s chances were better is that its scale is smaller: ten million people is a lot fewer than eighty-four million.

Somewhere between those two figures there may have been a total that struck Roberts and Kavanaugh as representing too many people, or too many companies, regulated. And yet constitutionality is not, one would think, strictly a numbers game.

The OSHA rule was, in some respects, more flexible than the Medicare-Medicaid one. Both provide for medical and religious exemptions. Beyond that, the OSHA rule has exemptions for people who work entirely outdoors or remotely, and OSHA also gave companies the option of asking employees to test and mask, as well as an opportunity to show that they had an alternative plan that would be as effective as the mandate. The majority dismissed the exemptions as “largely illusory,” calling the mandate a “blunt instrument.” The three liberal Justices, in their dissent, argued that Congress had quite bluntly given OSHA the power to protect workers, and, last year, had reëmphasized that power by directing OSHA to address issues related to COVID-19 in the American Rescue Plan Act. Extraordinarily, the majority rebuffed that argument, saying that COVID-19 could not generally be seen as a workplace threat but as a “universal risk . . . no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases.” (The opinion did leave some room for narrower mandates affecting certain kinds of workers, such as “researchers who work with the COVID–19 virus” or those in exceptionally “cramped” environments—an opening that the Biden Administration might now pursue.) The very nature of the pandemic threat, according to that logic, limits the federal government’s ability to act. Barring new, even more specific COVID-19 legislation from Congress, the Justices who oppose the mandates prefer to leave that responsibility to the states. (In that way, the cases, as Elizabeth Kolbert noted earlier this week, are related to other efforts to upend regulatory frameworks now before the Court.)

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The majority’s view of workplace risk raises the question of whether the difference between the two mandates has something to do with whom each is designed to protect. The legal premise of the OSHA mandate is that it is meant to protect workers. As the liberal dissenters wrote, after noting the ways in which COVID-19 can spread in workplaces, “critically, employees usually have little or no control in those settings.” The issue, in other words, may not be federal power per se but how federal power is deployed in situations in which certain workers may be relatively powerless. In contrast, the legal premise for the Medicare-Medicaid mandate is the protection of patients, not health-care workers directly. The Secretary of Health and Human Services’ authority to set standards for facilities that take federal Medicare and Medicaid money is well established. The federal government is the paying customer. And the idea of preventing the spread of a potentially dangerous disease in an already regulated health-care setting isn’t much of a stretch.

Indeed, given the clarity of the rationale for the Medicare-Medicaid mandate, the closeness of the margin is both striking and dispiriting. Four Justices opposed it. The outcome shows how hard-conservative the Court’s core is. (Kavanaugh is not exactly a centrist swing vote.) The reasoning in the dissents—there are two, one by Alito and one by Thomas, both joined by the other and by Barrett and Gorsuch—amounts to calling the vaccine an “unwanted medical procedure,” complaining about regulatory agencies generally, and saying that the Biden Administration has “not made a strong showing.” In the oral arguments, the Administration pointed to multiple statutory authorities for the Medicare-Medicaid mandate, which might be seen as a sign of the strength of its case; instead, the dissenters felt that this meant that they were being confronted with a “hodgepodge of provisions.” A reference in one such statute to “infection control” was dismissed as “oblique,” and other language as “obscure.” They saw only what they wanted to see. Those Justices often do.



Anonymous said...

Like I said.
No status change.

I have never attacked the poor, period, full stop.

why did you attack the poor and those in Vermont?

Denny admits he attacked the poor and Vermont residents, however .

Vermont per capita income does not out them in your "poor" status.

Denny , you didn't actually answer my question, because you simply don't have the mental fire power .

C.H. Truth said...

Roger...

It's simpler than that.

The one mandate involves healthcare facilities that rely on federal funds and are under more stringent federal healthcare oversight. These facilities are all in the same industry and requires much of their employees to be in person and patient facing.

The other is a mandate on private industries that are not reliant of federal funds and under less federal oversight. That mandate makes no distinction between a company that might work in tight conditions and one where all of the employees work remote. It's an arbitrary decision to simply put 84 million Americans under Government rule based on the arbitrary concept of a company with over 100 employees.

In the latter, there is no actual oversight of health... only OSHA (which in spite of health being in the title - it's really about safety). I would assume as someone who worked in the "trades" that you would be aware of OSHA and what they do. They inspect worker conditions, inspect worker safety. I am curious if in any time in your career in the trades that OSHA came into any facility you were working on and demanded the employees medical files from their doctor.


The problem for most people here Roger... and I would call it a "blinds spot" for lack of a better term... is that many seem to think this was a decision about the validity of the mandate. That the USSC is saying that the mandate is bad or not justified.

But this decision had almost nothing to do with whether or not the healthcare mandate was good or bad. Obviously that was what the liberal justices (especially Sotomayer) wanted to make it about.

But ultimately this was about the law and whether or not the Government can just mandate a health decision on American citizens. More specifically whether or not the "agency" in question has that sort of authority.


If a state is not permitted to create actual laws surrounding medical decisions (Roe v Wade) due to a constitutional privacy, then certainly a simple agency tasked with inspecting employer sites for safety cannot create a "regulation" to do so.

wouldn't you agree?

Anonymous said...

Love these set of wood heating facts
Cite : MSN
"
Wood-burning stoves can help save you money on your heating bill, and burning wood as a heat source can be easier on the environment than gas or coal."

GREEN, renewable and clean.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I think that the federal government can impose restrictions and regulations than you.

We are The United States of America


The authority of the Federal government has been in question from day one.

Repealing Roe v Wade gives the government control over a women's body, depending upon first second and third time, laws.



Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Trimester

C.H. Truth said...

Repealing Roe v Wade gives the government control over a women's body, depending upon first second and third

Technically it would give the Government control over a medical procedure (abortion). The rest is rhetoric.

But is there something I am not aware of in the constitution that provides that a procedure for women (abortion) is treated differently than a medical procedure (vaccination) for everyone?


So if you believe that the Government has the right to control medical decisions, then quite obviously you are wanting to see the repeal of Roe v Wade (which would end the medical privacy precedent it created).

Is that what you are arguing?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.vox.com/22883639/supreme-court-vaccines-osha-cms-biden-mandate-nfib-labor-missouri#

I'm going to watch the football game I will read this article and think it out before I respond to the question.

Caliphate4vr said...

I think that the federal government can impose restrictions and regulations than you.

Of course you do

Thank goodness our founders weren’t C students

Amendment X

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.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

Some things states are not allowed to do anymore. Enslave people, for example.

Denying citizens the right to vote should be treated similarly.

Caliphate4vr said...

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

—C. S. Lewis

Caliphate4vr said...

Blogger Honest, decent, truth telling Reverend said...
Some things states are not allowed to do anymore. Enslave people, for example.


Hey pedo amend the constitution then to give unelected potentates control of your life

See this is why you can’t post extemporaneously you’re fucking stupid

C.H. Truth said...

Denying citizens the right to vote should be treated similarly.

Nobody disagrees with that Reverend and there isn't a single law anywhere that is denying anyone the right to vote.

But hey... if you want to be dishonest and tell a lie, go ahead and keep up with the untrue hyperbole.


I will just go ahead and debate what the Democratic bill actually does... which is reverse the progress being made to put us in line with the rest of the world on things like Voter ID. I will also honestly tell you that I am against the illegal concept of ballot harvesting, and will side with the wide majority of American who feel like I do that I am not wanting anyone sending my personal voting ballot out in the mail - when I didn't request it.

I understand that you don't understand any if this well enough to argue facts... which is why you prefer to blatantly lie.

Shame on you, Reverend. You should live up to your moniker... at least occasionally.

Anonymous said...

James and Roger attempt to debate based not on facts but emotional outbursts.

Myballs said...

Go Bills!

Anonymous said...

Yep, staying warm more difficult for the poorest.
Biden's plan, in act policies to make energy much more expensive.

"ROCKFORD (WREX) — The recent stretch of below freezing temperatures isn't helping your heating bill. The price for natural gas has spiked causing residents and business owners to dig deeper in their pockets. But there are steps you can take to lower your bill.

According to Nicor Gas, its current prices (January 2022 - 61 cents per thermostat) are double than it was a year ago (January 2021 - 29 cents per thermostat)."



Anonymous said...

The final slash of The New Deal.

Biden v. Missouri was a huge win for the interests that for 80 years have been expanding unaccountable big government at the expense of the voice and the rights of the people.

"The agency that issued the mandate at issue here, i.e., the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ad­mits it did not comply with the commonsense measure of seeking public input before placing binding rules on mil­lions of people," Alito wrote in his dissent.

Strict adherence to constitutional principles gives "individuals and entities who may be seriously impacted by agency rules at least some opportunity to make their views heard and to have them given serious consider­ation," Alito explained.  "Congress has clearly required that agencies comply with basic procedural safeguards.  Except in rare cases, an agency must provide public notice of proposed rules."



We have just witnessed such a "rare case" in which public notice and comment were deemed unnecessary by the bureaucrats in the Biden administration.  We also are watching what is supposedly "rare" become increasingly commonplace.

Alito cited precedent that provides that "the public must be given the opportunity to comment on those proposals ... and if the agency issues the rule, it must address concerns raised during the notice-and-comment process."  If you wonder whether you had that opportunity before the vaccine mandate went into effect, you didn't.

If you think this means that you can expect more diktats from on high without regard to your consent or even comment, you're right.  That one step backward was a huge step, and you have little if any option except to file lawsuits after the fact and hope the damage the Administrative State does can be repaired by the time your case gets a hearing or a decision by the Supreme Court.

As Alito points out, this ruling "has an importance that extends beyond the confines of these cases.  It may have a lasting effect on Executive Branch behavior."

There is no "maybe" about this:  Those health care employees who submit to the vaccination to save their jobs won't be able to undo whatever the vaccine does to them.

As the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines has been exposed as fleeting at best, many vax critics point to adverse side-effects, up to and including blood clots, inflammation of the heart, fatal strokes, and heart attacks.

Rather than put such a momentous decision and its ramifications before the people for comment and approval, the Biden administration "did none of those things," Alito wrote.

Here's the twist of the knife: Alito also noted, "[T]oday's ruling means only that the Federal Govern­ment is likely to be able to show that this departure is law­ful, not that it actually is" lawful.

Let that sink in.  Take your jab and its consequences, even though later the government may be shown to have forced you unlawfully.

If we give the government the benefit of the doubt, maybe Biden's minions are operating on the principle that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.  That's a strategy FDR, the shaper of the modern administrative state, would no doubt smile upon.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

They summarized the two decisions very precisely.

The Supreme Court wants to be President Biden’s boss.

Conservatives are wary of the liberal authority, but not about conservative oversight.

In fairness, there is some language in the NFIB opinion that the Biden administration might find comforting. Although the Court rejects OSHA’s broad rule, it does indicate that OSHA could issue a narrower rule in some cases. “Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace,” the Court writes, “targeted regulations are plainly permissible.”

Similarly, NFIB rejects the slash-and-burn approach to curtailing OSHA’s authority that is favored by the very most conservative members of the federal bench. The majority opinion concedes that “Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers.”

So, small victories: The opinions in NFIB and Missouri suggest that the Court will still permit the Biden administration to govern some of the time. But they also suggest that the Court will exercise a broad veto power over this administration’s regulatory actions.

As Judge Jane Stranch wrote in a lower court opinion backing the OSHA mandate, the major questions doctrine that the Court relies upon to strike that mandate “is hardly a model of clarity, and its precise contours — specifically, what constitutes a question concerning deep economic and political significance — remain undefined.” The same can be said about other legal doctrines (such as one known as “nondelegation”) that the Court has also floated as justification to strike down federal regulations in recent cases.

The elevation of these doctrines is dangerous. When courts hand down such vague and open-ended rules, they effectively transfer power to themselves. As the NFIB and Missouri cases show, doctrines like major questions are hard to apply in a principled way, and very easy to apply selectively. And they can justify striking down nearly any significant rule that a majority of the justices dislike.

The justices, in other words, have set themselves up as the final censors of any regulatory action. The Biden administration may still propose new rules, but those rules are likely to stand only if five justices agree with them.

The Buffalo Bills are kicking ass

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

COLLEYVILLE, Texas (AP) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted that all hostages are safe after Saturday’s standoff inside a Dallas-area synagogue.

“Prayers answered. All hostages are out alive and safe,” Abbott tweeted Saturday night.

Abbott’s tweet came not long after a loud bang and what sounded like gunfire was heard coming from the synagogue. Details of the rescue were not immediately clear.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Sunday Funnies squad


Trump brags about Jan. 6 crowd size: 'I think it was the largest I've ever spoken before'

John Wright

January 15, 2022

Former president Donald Trump on Saturday complained that the "fake news" media never reports on the size of the crowd at his Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" rally prior to the Capitol insurrection.

"They talk about the people that walked down to the Capitol," Trump told the crowd at his MAGA rally in Arizona. "They don't talk about the size of that crowd. I believe it was the largest crowd I've ever spoken before, and they were there to protest the election."

Trump also promoted a false-flag conspiracy theory that the FBI — which he indirectly controlled at the time through the executive branch — was somehow behind the insurrection.

"Exactly how many of those present at the Capitol complex on Jan. 6 were FBI confidential informants, agents, or otherwise working directly or indirectly with an agency of the United States government?" Trump said.

"How about the one guy (who said) 'go in, go in, get in there everybody' — Epps — 'get in there, go, go, go,'" Trump said, referring to Jan. 6 protester Ray Epps.

This week, the House Select Committee investigating the insurrection debunked the conspiracy theory about Epps, which has been pushed by others including Fox News' Tucker Carlson, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

"Nothing happens to him," Trump said of Epps. "What happened with him? Nothing happens. Did any of these individuals play any role whatsoever in facilitating the events at the Capitol? That's what we want to know."

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-2656414821/

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://twitter.com/newsmax/status/1482570809419833344?t=MIYWM8sAmnEKaD7Qv0kasg&s=19

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/14/truth-leaks-out/