PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on November 12, 2021, 06:40:41 PM
-
In another blow to the fucking senile imposter, faux president fuckwad, US Court Of Appeals Orders biden regime to "Take No Steps" to enforce the unconstitutional Scam vaccine mandate.
Let's Go Brandon!!!
Fuck joe.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/appeals-court-re-affirms-stay-biden-workplace-vaccine-mandate
-
Good.
-
Excellent news. Eff Government. Eff Government mandates. Eff ROYALTY.
-
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/db446ada300c17b1c8e3a6530561a46f/e7ff5065/BSTHoldingsvOSHAOrder.pdf
-
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/db446ada300c17b1c8e3a6530561a46f/e7ff5065/BSTHoldingsvOSHAOrder.pdf
From the decision:
On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster—which we need not decide today9—it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own terms. Indeed, the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same 8 The nondelegation doctrine constrains Congress’s threat). The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years,
10 and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to11—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.
One fatal flaw in the senile imposter and his regime of communists, is that the bullshit mandate seeks to 'protect' some workers, while causing others to be 'unprotected.' It is the typical liberal idea that some are more equal than others. Fortunately the appellate recognizes the idiocy of this type of governance. Of course limiting communists (democrats) power to choose winners and losers will infuriate faux libertarians and other types of pussies, but the constitution wasn't written to benefit only a chosen few. That was a liberal agenda item only.
-
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/12/will-bidens-vaccine-mandate-work-around-work-with-the-supreme-court/
After long debating whether it even has this authority, OSHA has suddenly found it, and then has issued one of the most comprehensive health-based standards in its history — all without rule-making or debate. Ironically, the Supreme Court warned against such sudden agency “finds” of regulatory authority. In 2014, the court ruled that “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decision of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”
Indeed, the Court recently rejected Biden’s effort to continue the eviction moratorium under the same type of sweeping interpretation by saying “t strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the [agency] the sweeping authority that it asserts.”
In other words, Klain’s confidence may not be shared by some on the court.
The Justice Department will have to find a way around Klain’s “work-around” rationale. It also will need more than a hard-hat rationale in this “hard case,” if it wants to avoid bad law.
-
Liberals (communists) LOVE bad law.
It gives them power.
-
Liberals (communists) LOVE bad law.
It gives them power.
They don’t even believe in any law as evidenced by their hatred of the highest law: the Constitution. What they believe in is “because-I-say-so” command.
-
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/db446ada300c17b1c8e3a6530561a46f/e7ff5065/BSTHoldingsvOSHAOrder.pdf
Page 20:
The Constitution vests a limited legislative power in Congress. For more than a century, Congress has routinely used this power to delegate policymaking specifics and technical details to executive agencies charged with effectuating policy principles Congress lays down. In the mine run of cases—a transportation department regulating trucking on an interstate highway, or an aviation agency regulating an airplane lavatory—this is generally well and good. But health agencies do not make housing policy, and occupational safety administrations do not make health policy.
Last quoted sentence is quite the court zinger to the Biden administration: you tried this power grab nonsense before with the CDC eviction moratorium and the courts didn’t buy that either.
-
The question is, what is their next move?
-
The question is, what is their next move?
They’ll appeal to the SC. The justice that oversees the 5th is Alito. He’ll uphold the stay.
I got this from a friend via email. I think he’s correct.
Despite its unwillingness to go on-the-record, the Administration is seeing vaccination reporting at predictably high-compliance agencies around 90% (still too low to make discipline manageable or realistic) and at low-compliance agencies around 70%. It simply can't fire 20% of the federal workforce without creating an immediate and direct threat to national security and, potentially, even the stability and survival of the constitutional order.
The AFGE letter gives the Administration political cover to back peddle. The government will now push the deadline back to January 4 and hope for the best. However, when January 4 comes it will be in the same position as now. One of two things will happen then:
a. It will rubber-stamp a blanket approval of all exemption requests (maybe decline and fire a handful for show), and then declare 99.5% compliance using the same creative math NYC did (aggregating the vaxed and exempt workforce). Psaki will confidently declare the Administration's mandate worked and, in 2-3 years, some low-circulation, outlier paper like the Washington Examiner will publish an article based on FOIA data that finds it didn't actually work at all to increase vaccination, it only served to cause a bunch of federal workers to engage in some busy work plastering copy/pate nonsense across religious exemption forms.
OR
b. The CDC will declare the pandemic is over, it's now entered an endemic phase. Biden will declare his policies worked, the EO is no longer necessary, and will rescind it.
-
They’ll appeal to the SC. The justice that oversees the 5th is Alito. He’ll uphold the stay.
I got this from a friend via email. I think he’s correct.
So either way Biden administration will save face, or try to.
-
So either way Biden administration will save face, or try to.
Yep. It’s all about politics.
Xiden needs a win. He will feebly claim this.
-
Yep. It’s all about politics.
Xiden needs a win. He will feebly claim this.
And the pussy brigade will rush out and demand we offer him our respect for his ignorance, senility, dementia and
unending bullshit.
You all know who you are.
-
Yep. It’s all about politics.
Xiden needs a win. He will feebly claim this.
Just like he claims his withdrawal from Afghanistan was a win and his inflation is a win because “you’ll be getting higher wages” and jobs returning are a win even though it’s just shutdown jobs coming back, etc. etc.
-
They’ll appeal to the SC. The justice that oversees the 5th is Alito. He’ll uphold the stay.
I got this from a friend via email. I think he’s correct.
OR, they will do a 180 and make weekly testing mandatory and exemptions for vaccinated.
-
OR, they will do a 180 and make weekly testing mandatory and exemptions for vaccinated.
And weekly testing will just result in more and continuing “cases” (false positives and asymptomatics) to prolong the “pandemic” into infinity. Plus it will be a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” because the vaccinated won’t be tested although if they were they’d have the same rate of “positive cases”.
-
https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/db446ada300c17b1c8e3a6530561a46f/e7ff5065/BSTHoldingsvOSHAOrder.pdf
For understanding this stay, this is what I think is the key sentence: “ It was not—and likely could not be, under the Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine—intended to authorize a workplace safety administration in the deep recesses of the federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways.”
In this case, they were seeking to expand OSHA’s reach well beyond the workplace. Because OSHA’s authority stems from the commerce clause, OSHA cannot regulate risks that occur outside work. Otherwise, an argument could be made for them to regulate anything. jumping to a ridiculous example, they could regulate how parents feed a newborn on the premise that paternity leave impacts work concentration and productivity and is therefore a safety risk.
At their core, Democrats do not understand or value the Constitution, separation of powers, respect for individuals, Republicanism, or any of the things that make our country work.
-
Well said Flynny.
-
For understanding this stay, this is what I think is the key sentence: “ It was not—and likely could not be, under the Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine—intended to authorize a workplace safety administration in the deep recesses of the federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways.”
In this case, they were seeking to expand OSHA’s reach well beyond the workplace. Because OSHA’s authority stems from the commerce clause, OSHA cannot regulate risks that occur outside work. Otherwise, an argument could be made for them to regulate anything. jumping to a ridiculous example, they could regulate how parents feed a newborn on the premise that paternity leave impacts work concentration and productivity and is therefore a safety risk.
At their core, Democrats do not understand or value the Constitution, separation of powers, respect for individuals, Republicanism, or any of the things that make our country work.
Because they are Communists and want to get rid of the Constitution.
-
Because they are Communists and want to get rid of the Constitution.
Democrats seem oblivious to the nature of the U.S. which is conceived as a federation of sovereign states. That’s been whittled away bit by bit for a hundred years now, by people, like Democrats, who want to concentrate power over us all in a central authority.
-
Democrats seem oblivious to the nature of the U.S. which is conceived as a federation of sovereign states. That’s been whittled away bit by bit for a hundred years now, by people, like Democrats, who want to concentrate power over us all in a central authority.
To grasp our current situation, go read the Cloward/Piven strategy. Then look at the "Build Back Better" slogan, and then it all starts coming together.
-
And weekly testing will just result in more and continuing “cases” (false positives and asymptomatics) to prolong the “pandemic” into infinity. Plus it will be a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” because the vaccinated won’t be tested although if they were they’d have the same rate of “positive cases”.
I didn't say it was logical...
-
I didn't say it was logical...
I didn’t mean to imply I thought you thought it was, or agreed with it. I’m sorry if it sounded like I did.
-
Back to the OP. I don’t trust Kavanaugh, Amy Koney Barrett or Roberts to rule in favor of this stay.
-
Back to the OP. I don’t trust Kavanaugh, Amy Koney Barrett or Roberts to rule in favor of this stay.
IMO I see the SC punting on this one, that is they will refuse to hear it, and the stay remains in place.
-
A good analysis
-
The 5th Circuit is under Alito. They can ask him to lift the stay, but due to the severe constitutional issues I doubt it.
IMO I see the SC punting on this one, that is they will refuse to hear it, and the stay remains in place.
Roberts’ court has utterly failed to rule on the important issues of the day. They punt on everything, and look at themselves as another Appeals court, not the Supreme Court.
-
IMO I see the SC punting on this one, that is they will refuse to hear it, and the stay remains in place.
Yes that would be the cowardly Roberts court to a tee.
-
The court is no different than Congress. They write a bill that says they grant the authority to a cabinet Secretary and their unelected idiots.
-
A bill should contain one item and the details of how they expect that item to be carried out.
-
Budgets should not be thousands of pages, shouldn't take more than a few pages to deal out the dollars.
-
Budgets should not be thousands of pages, shouldn't take more than a few pages to deal out the dollars.
I saw a clip where some Republican held up the bill with a big red price tag on it admonishing the Democrats or anyone voting for it to read every one of the however many thousands of pages, now I can’t find it. It was great. The thing was like a cubic foot brick.
-
The court is no different than Congress. They write a bill that says they grant the authority to a cabinet Secretary and their unelected idiots.
But that authority has to be based in law. In other words, an agency can write regulations (administrative) but those regulations are written within the confines of USC (United States Code) which are federal laws written by congress.
So an agency cannot write a regulation granting them anything outside of what has been codified in law. This is what the 5th Circuit is saying (among other things) in the stay.
-
Yes that would be the cowardly Roberts court to a tee.
That isn't cowardly. That's the court saying they can't take every case and they don't need to take a case where the lower court got it right just to reinforce what the lower court said. The court gets around 8000 petitions a year and hears around 150 of them.
-
Budgets should not be thousands of pages, shouldn't take more than a few pages to deal out the dollars.
The thousands of pages bills are a way to hide stuff. Then said bills are rushed through congress to keep members from reading them or giving the public time to read them.
Congress and the senate don't give a damn. The Uniparty of DC are only interested in their share of the pie, and sticking the bill to the taxpayers.
This is yet another reason for term limits. These multi thousand page bills and congressional shenanigans are being perpetuated by career politicians gaming the system.
-
But that authority has to be based in law. In other words, an agency can write regulations (administrative) but those regulations are written within the confines of USC (United States Code) which are federal laws written by congress.
So an agency cannot write a regulation granting them anything outside of what has been codified in law. This is what the 5th Circuit is saying (among other things) in the stay.
Yes. My interpretation of the court’s decision is, that what’s written within the confines cannot be interpreted too broadly, and here they are attempting just that (or Biden is directing them to). OSHA may regulate to “keep the workplace safe”. This means workplace related things. They can mandate guard rails on decks and catwalks for example. To interpret somebody getting sick and potentially transmitting a disease to coworkers is not workplace specific, even though a worker may catch the flu from a coworker at the workplace. The law allowing OSHA to regulate workplace safety was never intended to give OSHA broad powers to control every aspect of every worker’s life that may eventually manifest at work, incidental to any other location.
-
That isn't cowardly. That's the court saying they can't take every case and they don't need to take a case where the lower court got it right just to reinforce what the lower court said. The court gets around 8000 petitions a year and hears around 150 of them.
Refusing the Texas et al election case was most definitely cowardly. But you are correct, in that cowardice is not usually why they refuse cases. Sheer numbers of cases is the main reason. Another reason is that they sometimes hold off ruling on an issue until society becomes more open to it, gay marriage for instance. They turned that down until it became more generally acceptable to more people.
If they refuse the case, the lower court ruling stands. That signals that they’re good with that, at least for now.
-
That isn't cowardly. That's the court saying they can't take every case and they don't need to take a case where the lower court got it right just to reinforce what the lower court said. The court gets around 8000 petitions a year and hears around 150 of them.
Well, something as Constitutionally basic as this should get the top court to rule against such an unabashed overreach so it won't happen again.
-
That isn't cowardly. That's the court saying they can't take every case and they don't need to take a case where the lower court got it right just to reinforce what the lower court said. The court gets around 8000 petitions a year and hears around 150 of them.
Yolt’s point is accurate. Robert’s court has utterly failed for years to rule on the major issues of the day; instead they nibble around tangential issues, bounce it back to the District court, and other ineffective acts.
-
Yolt’s point is accurate. Robert’s court has utterly failed for years to rule on the major issues of the day; instead they nibble around tangential issues, bounce it back to the District court, and other ineffective acts.
Steve Lehto says the SC should be compelled to take certain cases.
-
Steve Lehto says the SC should be compelled to take certain cases.
In what way does the US Constitution allow/require that?
-
In what way does the US Constitution allow/require that?
It does not. It is Steve’s opinion. He makes that clear. I said, he said “should”, meaning he thinks they ought to, not he thinks it’s now required and they’re not complying. I suppose we’d need a constitutional amendment outlining the limits and conditions because we can’t expect them to take all of them. Maybe Congress should have the authority with however many votes you want to require, to require the SC to take certain important cases demanding resolution. I’m sure there’d be all kinds of balance of powers controversy over the suggestion. It’ll never happen.
-
It does not. It is Steve’s opinion. He makes that clear. I said, he said “should”, meaning he thinks they ought to, not he thinks it’s now required and they’re not complying. I suppose we’d need a constitutional amendment outlining the limits and conditions because we can’t expect them to take all of them. Maybe Congress should have the authority with however many votes you want to require, to require the SC to take certain important cases demanding resolution. I’m sure there’d be all kinds of balance of powers controversy over the suggestion. It’ll never happen.
I wasn't sniping at you... the point being regardless* of what Steve Lehto thinks oughta/shoulda happen, it's not constituional
*would you prefer "irregardless"? <evil grin>
-
I wasn't sniping at you... the point being regardless* of what Steve Lehto thinks oughta/shoulda happen, it's not constituional
*would you prefer "irregardless"? <evil grin>
I apologize, I thought you were sniping at me. Strangely enough, irregardless doesn’t bother me at all. It’s like flammable and inflammable where the negating prefix doesn’t negate the meaning but means the same as the original word. I’m okay with either. Those are the only two I can think of. You would think it would bug me but it doesn’t.