Jump to content

Joe Biden 2021

tantric superman

By tantric superman
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31262

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

  

 

All the lawyers jump up real quick when someone jokes about making congress subject to the government vaccine mandate, but not much to say when it's pointed out that the legal basis for the broad mandate will get challenged in court.  Put aside your political bias for a moment, do you think that the OSHA rule broadly targeting businesses with 100 or more employees (whenever it actually gets written of course) will stand up to the challenges?  My gut tells me no.  

It will get challenged, but it will probably fail.  There's quite a bit of Supreme Court precedent upholding various vaccine mandates.

Biden's EO commands the Department of Labor to implement the mandate and the testing alternative probably makes it that much more enforceable.

I happen to think this would be a valid exercise of CDC power under the same provision that it improperly imposed the eviction moratorium.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 8.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

immamac
immamac

@GRHorn I'm going to dinner at Bob's tomorrow and expensing it to the surly business account simply to re-take the picture that is your avatar, and I'm going to replace it with one that actually looks

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at its all-time high today, so I'd like to congratulate Joe Biden for building the greatest economy the world has ever seen.

mdmost
mdmost

Let us know the results after you take it

Posted Images

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104556

Posted
Posted
 
All the lawyers jump up real quick when someone jokes about making congress subject to the government vaccine mandate, but not much to say when it's pointed out that the legal basis for the broad mandate will get challenged in court.  Put aside your political bias for a moment, do you think that the OSHA rule broadly targeting businesses with 100 or more employees (whenever it actually gets written of course) will stand up to the challenges?  My gut tells me no.  

Then don’t make stupid points. Make smart ones. When you make stupid points, we will 1) call you fucking stupid, and b) not engage with the remainder of your stupidity.

Want a smart conversation? Then participate in one (you know, intellectually honest conversations require, umm, “both sides” to so engage).

You get what you ask for. Eat your shit sandwich and shut up, it’s what you ordered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


Then don’t make stupid points. Make smart ones. When you make stupid points, we will 1) call you fucking stupid, and b) not engage with the remainder of your stupidity.

Want a smart conversation? Then participate in one (you know, intellectually honest conversations require, umm, “both sides” to so engage).

You get what you ask for. Eat your shit sandwich and shut up, it’s what you ordered.

 

Is that a YES or a NO to whether that component of the EO stands up to legal challenge?  Or you just going to keep mumbling about "both sides".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  

 

All the lawyers jump up real quick when someone jokes about making congress subject to the government vaccine mandate, but not much to say when it's pointed out that the legal basis for the broad mandate will get challenged in court.  Put aside your political bias for a moment, do you think that the OSHA rule broadly targeting businesses with 100 or more employees (whenever it actually gets written of course) will stand up to the challenges?  My gut tells me no.  

I would love for Congress and its minions to be subject to the vaccine mandate. The only problem with that love is there are a bunch of gigantic shitheads in the senate like Ann Rand and Flyin’ Ted who won’t allow that love to ever happen. So it’s pointless to even debate it.

And I’ll put aside my political bias and tell you that your gut instinct is wrong and the government can make arbitrary 100 employee requirements on businesses if it wants to in the name of public health and does so all the fucking time. Just because a bunch of idiot republicans don’t wannna get vaccinated doesn’t make them somehow special. Fuck them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104556

Posted
Posted
 
Is that a YES or a NO to whether that component of the EO stands up to legal challenge?  Or you just going to keep mumbling about "both sides".  

You’ve lost all “honest conversation” privileges. I don’t play those games with juvenile fucksticks. You e crossed the line too many times, and it’s been more than enough. Go sit in the corner where you belong, and try to impress the wall with your bullshit. It’s the engagement you deserve.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104556

Posted
Posted
I would love for Congress and its minions to be subject to the vaccine mandate. The only problem with that love is there are a bunch of gigantic shitheads in the senate like Ann Rand and Flyin’ Ted who won’t allow that love to ever happen. So it’s pointless to even debate it.
And I’ll put aside my political bias and tell you that your gut instinct is wrong and the government can make arbitrary 100 employee requirements on businesses if it wants to in the name of public health and does so all the fucking time. Just because a bunch of idiot republicans don’t wannna get vaccinated doesn’t make them somehow special. Fuck them.

Ana knew the answer to his question. It wasn’t an honest question. He doesn’t do intellectual honesty. Cut him off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I would love for Congress and its minions to be subject to the vaccine mandate.

Back in August Pelosi seemed to think that FDA approval would open the door for them to implement one in the House. It was certainly the last gate that needed to be cleared for my employer to move quickly to implement one. 

 

12 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

And I’ll put aside my political bias and tell you that your gut instinct is wrong and the government can make arbitrary 100 employee requirements on businesses if it wants to in the name of public health and does so all the fucking time.

Will be interesting to see how that one plays out. It seems like drawing arbitrary lines around some things and not others undermines the fundamental basis of the public health argument, but I am not well versed in your dark arts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Back in August Pelosi seemed to think that FDA approval would open the door for them to implement one in the House. It was certainly the last gate that needed to be cleared for my employer to move quickly to implement one. 

 

Will be interesting to see how that one plays out. It seems like drawing arbitrary lines around some things and not others undermines the fundamental basis of the public health argument, but I am not well versed in your dark arts. 

 

Undermines? How so? 

Obamacare has an arbitrary 50 employee threshold. Is there a difference between 49 employee company and a 51 employee company? Nope. They wanted to exempt small businesses to protect them. You have to draw the line somewhere. The government draws arbitrary lines all the time. This isn’t new. It sure as shit doesn’t under the public health argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104556

Posted
Posted
Undermines? How so? 
Obamacare has an arbitrary 50 employee threshold. Is there a difference between 49 employee company and a 51 employee company? Nope. They wanted to exempt small businesses to protect them. You have to draw the line somewhere. The government draws arbitrary lines all the time. This isn’t new. It sure as shit doesn’t under the public health argument. 

He wasn’t asking an honest question. So don’t waste your time giving him an honest answer. Treat him like the sophomoric asshole he is, and ignore him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Undermines? How so? 

There is a stronger public health argument for mandatory vaccination of employees of a retail shop with 99 associates with direct exposure to the public than there is for a company of 100 software engineers working from home in front of their computers. The supreme court precedents I have seen referenced related to vaccination mandates from public health entities at local and state level.  An EO using OSHA standards to mandate vaccination is novel and outside that precedent. But I guess we will see what happens.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Right, I didn't miss it. For a board full of lawyers, pretty uncritical discussion of Biden's EO. 

 

The reason there’s not much discussion of it among “the lawyers” is there’s not a whole lot to discuss. His EO is in all likelihood legal and within his powers as the president. At least based on past precedent.
 

And if it somehow isn’t, I’m sure the republican packed courts will figure out a way to let us know that. 
 

The law is not a static thing and my crystal ball is cloudy. Especially these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

It's remarkable to me that as old and stale as Anastasis's schtick is, so many of y'all still respond to it.

I decided long ago not to ignore trolls but to respond to them in kind depending on what they do. He’s actually one of our better trolls. Talented in a way. Although this particular discussion is admittedly pretty dumb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

It's remarkable to me that as old and stale as Anastasis's schtick is, so many of y'all still respond to it.

Keep making hay on this board with CR lawyers telling me things are totally cool and totally normal.  At least until independent inspector generals or courts chime in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Limits of EO authority are dumb.  Dumber than dumb.  Unless it's Trump. But totally not if it is Biden. 

See this is where I get to act the role of being intellectually superior. A role reversal I admit.

Discussing whether or not an EO is legal or not is not dumb. But best I can tell you haven’t put forth argument one that it is and we all know you are arguing outside your skis again just like you did with the whole Carter page FISA warrant thing. 
 

It’s all good though. It’s just the net. I actually enjoy it. Probably more than I should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4957

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Are you even allowed to go outside bro?

actually yes my homie, thanks for asking. we bailed on Melbourne e/o July. Grabbed our computers and one week of clothes and a one way ticket away from the big cities here. Currently on the west coast where there is no covid amazingly enough. 

i feel bad for my totally vaccinated friends in Sydney and Melbs that - may - get some better rules in Oct/Nov and get outside more

tyrion-game-of-thrones.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45546

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, staboner said:

actually yes my homie, thanks for asking. we bailed on Melbourne e/o July. Grabbed our computers and one week of clothes and a one way ticket away from the big cities here. Currently on the west coast where there is no covid amazingly enough. 

i feel bad for my totally vaccinated friends in Sydney and Melbs that - may - get some better rules in Oct/Nov and get outside more

 

A close friend moved to Brisbane just before covid -- are they still in the same situation as the other big cities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9935

Posted
Posted

OSHA was given the right by Congress to issue "emergency temporary standards." This law has been on the books for a while (pre-COVID):

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b).

To this end, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards under sections 6(b) and (c) of the OSH Act.[1] 29 U.S.C. 655(b). These provisions provide bases for issuing occupational safety and health standards under the Act.

Once OSHA has established as a threshold matter that a health standard is necessary under section 6(b) or (c)—i.e., to reduce a significant risk of material health impairment, or a grave danger to employee health—the Act gives the Secretary “almost unlimited discretion to devise means to achieve the congressionally mandated goal” of protecting employee health, subject to the constraints of feasibility. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

A standard's individual requirements need only be “reasonably related” to the purpose of ensuring a safe and healthful working environment. Id. at 1237, 1241; see also Forging Industry Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985). OSHA's authority to regulate employers is hedged by constitutional considerations and, pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, the regulations and enforcement policies of other federal agencies. Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 241 (2002).

The OSH Act states that the Secretary “shall” issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) if he finds that the ETS is necessary to address a grave danger to workers. See 29 U.S.C. 655(c). In particular, the Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1).

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/21/2021-12428/occupational-exposure-to-covid-19-emergency-temporary-standard

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

OSHA was given the right by Congress to issue "emergency temporary standards." This law has been on the books for a while (pre-COVID):

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b).

To this end, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards under sections 6(b) and (c) of the OSH Act.[1] 29 U.S.C. 655(b). These provisions provide bases for issuing occupational safety and health standards under the Act.

Once OSHA has established as a threshold matter that a health standard is necessary under section 6(b) or (c)—i.e., to reduce a significant risk of material health impairment, or a grave danger to employee health—the Act gives the Secretary “almost unlimited discretion to devise means to achieve the congressionally mandated goal” of protecting employee health, subject to the constraints of feasibility. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

A standard's individual requirements need only be “reasonably related” to the purpose of ensuring a safe and healthful working environment. Id. at 1237, 1241; see also Forging Industry Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985). OSHA's authority to regulate employers is hedged by constitutional considerations and, pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, the regulations and enforcement policies of other federal agencies. Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 241 (2002).

The OSH Act states that the Secretary “shall” issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) if he finds that the ETS is necessary to address a grave danger to workers. See 29 U.S.C. 655(c). In particular, the Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1).

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/21/2021-12428/occupational-exposure-to-covid-19-emergency-temporary-standard

 

 

 

Best article I have seen discussing the OSHA approach from a legal perspective.  While clearly the author is postured towards defending the rule (even prior to the actual rule being written), they point out some of the areas that will be litigated. 

https://www.vox.com/22666625/biden-vaccine-mandate-covid-19-supreme-court-osha-constitution-legal

 

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23393

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, elfenix said:

proper use of "begging the question" is so infrequent that we don't recognize it when it is used properly.

Another discussion of the legal angles....

https://reason.com/2021/09/10/the-biden-administrations-emergency-vaccine-mandate-may-be-vulnerable-to-legal-challenges

 

In the half-century after Congress approved the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted in a report updated on July 13, OSHA issued an ETS just 10 times. Before June 21, when OSHA used an emergency standard to require specific COVID-19 precautions for health care workers, it had not issued an ETS in 38 years, and it had never cited the danger posed by a communicable disease as the justification for an ETS.

Of the nine emergency standards issued between 1971 and 1983, three (dealing with asbestos, vinyl chloride, and the soil fumigant DBCP) were not challenged. Of the six that were challenged in court, four (dealing with asbestos, benzene, organophosphorus pesticides, and diving operations) were stayed or vacated, one (dealing with various carcinogens) was partly vacated, and one (dealing with vinyl cyanide) was upheld. In other words, legal challenges were partly or fully successful 83 percent of the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites
staboner

staboner 4957

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

A close friend moved to Brisbane just before covid -- are they still in the same situation as the other big cities?

they are good. in 2020 it was 100% melbourne. Now in 2021 its Melbs and Sydney doing it tough (as the aussies say). Brisbane with hard lockdowns here and there, but lasting like a week at the longest. big cities are at months and Melbourne is in hard lockdown > 1/2 the year now in both 2020 and in 2021 by late October.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...