Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Jul 14 14:12:01 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Vaccine Mandate Litigation
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Nov 03 13:30:09
I've been tracking this on other sites (correcting some misinformation for sport), but I thought UP might benefit from knowing about this via a copy/paste, since I don't see that this was covered. I'll post updates as they occur.

I will accept no pro-authoritarian critiques — if you love getting forcibly spooned by the government, keep that to yourself ;p
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Nov 03 13:30:18
People seem to be confusing the upcoming OSHA mandate with Biden's September 9th Executive Orders (which were vaccine mandates). It is no wonder that this confusion exists; Biden announced two mandate executive-orders at the same time that he announced further developments with his earlier executive order which called for OSHA to find bureaucratic means to force worker mandates. I've even seen left-wing propaganda sites such as AlterNet try to make it seem like no mandates are currently in effect [see [2] below], so the misinformation may be intentional as a means of forcing compliance under the radar. Most people seem unaware of the turmoil the mandates have caused the military, the federal government, and federal contractors/sub-contractors — all of whom the government trapped with these executive orders.

So, for clarity and as a reference:
• Executive Order (EO) 13999; signed January 21st, 2021 —
The upcoming OSHA mandate was partially initiated by this EO (13999). This EO called for OSHA to examine how to implement vaccine mandates on the workforce. Part of Biden's September 9th announcement was a follow-up to this, with the Biden White House effectively announcing that they were close to finding bureaucratic loopholes which could force vaccination or weekly testing on businesses with more than 100 people. Following up, on October 12th, OSHA submitted a draft of its "COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard" (publicly available for reading), which has been under review and is expected to be approved this week.

Compare that OSHA executive action to these federal worker and federal contractor/sub-contractor mandates by Executive Order:
• Executive Order 14042, "Ensuring Adequate COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors"; announced September 9th, 2021 —
This mandate basically draws distinctions and defines who is considered a federal contractor. Beneath the legalese, the message is this: businesses that have accepted government contracts are on the hook for this mandate. Businesses that do not comply will likely have their contracts pulled, which, in a pandemic, is effectively racketeering. The federal government bailed out businesses and can now leverage those bailouts to threaten compliance — i.e., comply with the mandate or be bankrupted. For people unaware of how deep the title "federal contractor/sub-contractor" cuts: this includes airlines (e.g., SouthWest), many hospitals, many industries (e.g., manufacturing), and many distributors.
• Executive Order 14043, "Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees"; announced September 9th, 2021 —
This mandate spells out which workers are affected (all federal workers and federal contractors/sub-contractors). It sets up the "Safer Federal Workforce Task Force" which is charged with being the point-of-contact and rule-maker for the mandate. It is this task force which finalized the deadlines and criteria for the "fully vaccinated" status.

[1] VOA News: "11 States Sue US Government Over Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors"; See also Forbes: "Here’s How Republican-Led States Are Trying To Block Biden’s Employee Vaccine Mandates"
[2] AlterNet published this misinformation on October 12th: "'A horrible liar': Ted Cruz torched for spreading lies about Southwest Air pilots and the COVID vaccine" — The article claims that the OSHA mandate is not in effect, therefore it was SouthWest Airlines itself that was mandating vaccination. This is false. SouthWest Airlines is a federal contractor and is thus under the vaccine mandate as defined in EOs 14042 and 14043, meaning that if SouthWest does not follow the government mandate, they will have government contracts pulled, bankrupting the airline.

Despite the government being sued over this — there has been no stay/injunction on the federal mandate. The White House knew that they would evade legal hot water by making it a time crunch, but judges have not responded to that manipulation (yet). Today (November 3rd) is now the last day to get first doses to make the December 8th "fully vaccinated" deadline ([first dose] + [3 weeks to 2nd dose] + [2-week cooldown] = [5 weeks to December 8th]), so now people are going to be pushing their HR departments for extensions or dealing with threats of unpaid leave or firings for non-compliance. In some rare cases (e.g., the U.S. military), the vaccination deadline may not necessarily mean outright firing but instead will be used as an "education" opportunity for the hold-outs.

However, it is now 19 states that have sued the federal government to stop the federal worker/contractor mandate. That's up another 8 states over the 11 states that had sued by October 29th (last Friday). The lawsuits highlight that the White House did indeed try to force this through with a time crunch. From CMM Online, November 2nd:
"All the lawsuits are arguing that the requirement that federal contracts receive COVID-19 vaccines violates federal law. and is an overreach of federal power. The lawsuits claim the president doesn’t have the authority to issue the rule and that it violates procurement law. The suits also argue that the rule violates the 10th Amendment reserving power to the states, illegally uses federal spending to coerce the states, and that 60 days of public comment wasn’t properly allowed."
http://www...ndates-for-federal-contractors

Aside from the time crunch ("60 days of public comment"), notice also "illegally uses federal spending to coerce the states". They lawsuits are well aware that the government was racketeering here:
1) The federal government shut down businesses with restrictions and mandates, causing bankruptcy crises
2) The government bailed out many of those businesses, making those businesses beholden to federal dollars
3) The government can now make additional demands of those businesses (e.g., the mandate), forcing businesses to comply or be bankrupted.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 04 12:10:06
I feel like this post is too much effort for UP

But Biden will have at least a decent shot in court, since most precedent in the last 80 years has been along the lines of "if it even remotely affects interstate commerce, and especially if it receives federal funds, the federal government has jurisdiction over it."

That said, this is a level of federal intrusion that hasn't been contemplated before, so hopefully the courts do the right thing and strike all this federal mandate garbage down.

The Biden administration's modus operandi these days seems to be "let's do arguably unlawful shit to appease our far left activist base, and ride that train until the judiciary steps in and stops us." It's unfortunate, but hardly surprising, given how revolutionary Democratic talking points have been in terms of packing the courts and Senate, nuking the filibuster, federalizing elections, etc.

I do like how Biden waited until right after the Tuesday elections to announce the $140,000 fines though...at some level, his inner circle knows that this stuff is unpopular.
Rugian
Member
Thu Nov 04 12:11:32
I also hope some GOP governors go full militant on this and announce that OSHA employees attempting to enforce this directive in their states will be arrested.

Because fuck this president.
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri Nov 05 08:35:51
[Rugian]: "I feel like this post is too much effort for UP"

It was at least no extra effort for me, since I typed it up for another site and only copy&pasted it for here :D

[Rugian]: "It's unfortunate, but hardly surprising, given how revolutionary Democratic talking points have been"

Yep. They are the true insurrectionists. And now, they use Executive Orders to prevent people from making informed choices. The United States is not the fucking UK, so Biden can get fucked. He is stepping directly into people's lives with these Executive Orders. This is even more egregious than Obama's individual mandate under the ACA. That mandate at least only hurt people's wallets (albeit in hugely destructive ways), but now Biden is going after people's physical bodies to appease his corporate overlords. One must notice the parallel of Obama and Biden's mandates is that they want direct ownership of human bodies by using the Ice-Nine of public health.

But the list has grown.
As of Thursday, November 4th, 22 states have sued:

First, it was..
Arkansas,
Alaska,
Missouri,
Iowa,
Montana,
Nebraska,
New Hampshire,
North Dakota,
South Dakota,
Wyoming,
Texas, and
Florida,

Then..
Georgia,
Alabama,
Idaho,
Kansas,
South Carolina,
Utah, and
West Virginia

And yesterday..
Kentucky,
Tennessee, and
Ohio

When nearly half of the fucking country is suing you for unconstitutional practices, you might have fucked up. This isn't even a political stunt by the GOP. I have barely seen any coverage of this at all.

..
[Rugian]: "I also hope some GOP governors go full militant on this and announce that OSHA employees attempting to enforce this directive in their states will be arrested."

That would be awesome. The DNC would spin that as the GOP going authoritarian, but the DNC would totally miss the fact that it was they who empowered Little Stalins of compliance and totalitarianism.

..
..
And speaking of OSHA: the OSHA mandate was finalized yesterday. NPR was sure to spread misinformation on the subject today:
"Hours after the White House issues its new vaccine mandate, GOP-led states sue"
http://www...sue-over-biden-vaccine-mandate

From the article:
• "This lawsuit requests a judge to stop the implementation of the mandate, which gives certain contractors until Jan. 4 to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. If those workers choose not to get vaccinated, they must test negative for COVID-19 at least once a week. The lawsuit claims the mandate is an example of federal overreach and both "unlawful and unconstitutional.""

Umm, no, fucking NPR.

Even NPR does not understand that there are multiple mandates in effect now: the federal worker/contractor/sub-contractor mandate (via EOs 14042 and 14043), and the OSHA/CMS mandate (enabled by EO 13999, which saw final policy information yesterday via OSHA's finalized fact sheet, November 4th [1]).

If NPR had bothered to follow their own link to the Kentucky/Ohio/Tennessee lawsuit, they would have noticed that it does not ONCE mention OSHA — because Kentucky is suing over the federal worker mandates (EOs 14042 and 14043). Kentucky even lists the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force as a primary defendant — which is the regulatory body that was designed to enforce the federal worker/contractor mandate, NOT the OSHA/CMS mandate. And if NPR had bothered reading the actual White House statement on the OSHA/CMS mandate, they might have even noticed that the White House themselves distinctly referred to the *"previous"* federal worker mandates as a distinct animal.

Having made that mistake, NPR further spreads misinformation by saying that federal contractors have until January 4th to be "fully vaccinated". Nope. Federal workers have until November 22nd, and Federal contractors/sub-contractors have until December 8th [2]. The *OSHA/CMS* mandate requires people be vaccinated or receive weekly testing by January 4th. So NPR uses outright misinformation to mis-frame opposition to the OSHA/CMS mandates as being silly (Who would oppose the choice of weekly testing, after all! It's such a grand "choice" to have to pay for weekly tests out-of-pocket to keep one's livelihood!)

It's not just NPR. US News via AP made the same error:
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2021-11-04/states-sue-to-block-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-contractors
So it's not just the far-left propagandists doing this. The center-left propagandists do it too.

To my knowledge, only Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have already announced imminent plans to sue over the OSHA/CMS mandate ("imminent" versus just saying that they would sue any mandate on the horizon). It was not *possible* to sue before yesterday because the OSHA/CMS mandate was previously only drafts and guidance; at best, lawyers could review OSHA's working draft ("COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard") and prepare their response for final review and release when the standard went into effect. That being the case, the Florida/Georgia/Alabama lawsuit on OSHA/CMS is expected today (November 5th).

Last thing: It's worth noting that putting the OSHA/CMS deadline on January 4th means that there is again a time crunch for litigation. But, *this* time the White House gave *exactly* 60 days for litigation to have any chance. They took the hint when they realized that their federal worker mandate could very well be overturned or stayed because of their abrupt timing — they gave lawyers about two weeks to take action before federal workers had to start getting first doses. Of course, January 4th *also* means that most of those work days will be peppered with government holidays, and it means that workers under OSHA/CMS will have to decide if they want to sacrifice their livelihoods just when they're trying to purchase gifts for their families (i.e., "[I guess I'll get vaccinated, since I won't be able to afford these gifts or January rent otherwise]")

These underhanded motherfuckers.

[1] "Fact Sheet: Biden Administration Announces Details of Two Major Vaccination Policies"
(OSHA and CMS rules)
[White House; November 4th, 2021]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/
[2] Safe Federal WorkForce Task Force (federal EO mandate regulatory body) pdf of federal contractors/sub-contractors (December 8th): http://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/downloads/Draft%20contractor%20guidance%20doc_20210922.pdf
[2] Task Force site on federal workers (November 22nd):
http://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/faq/vaccinations/
jergul
large member
Fri Nov 05 11:35:38
"They are the true insurrectionists"

Sooo much projection. If guns aint your fetish, then projection is.
kargen
Member
Fri Nov 05 11:42:31
The end run President Biden has tried to just have companies do it "voluntarily" is also getting major challenges. Some large unions are filing to sue on behalf of employees that are being fired.
Union employees not working means less funds for union leaders to embezzle so they are going to go after this full speed.

I was listening to someone who was saying there needs to be four conditions met before a federal mandate like this can be put in place and so far we have only met two of them. Was on in the background while I was working so I didn't hear what the four are.
One is no viable alternative and that might be why the government pushes back so hard on some of the other treatments some doctors are claiming will work. I've been trying to find something about the criteria but all that comes up is the current mandate.
I did find something kind of interesting. I've heard people on CNN and other places use school vaccinations as proof this can be done. The Supreme Court ruled that states could mandate vaccinations for children. The federal government being allowed to do that was not part of the decision.
murder
Member
Fri Nov 05 18:39:31

"And now, they use Executive Orders to prevent people from making informed choices."

lol @ "informed choices"

Rugian
Member
Fri Nov 05 18:46:31
Yes, informed choices. There is little reason for a person who is young and healthy to get the Covid vaccine, just as there are very good reasons for people who are old and sickly to get it.

murder
Member
Fri Nov 05 18:51:21

There's every reason for the government to prevent the spread of a deadly infectious disease.

Rugian
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:02:43
1) No they don't, youre confusing us with that communist shithole your padres fled from..

2) Vaccinated people spread Covid just as effectively as the unvaccinated.
murder
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:19:08

"2) Vaccinated people spread Covid just as effectively as the unvaccinated."

No they don't.


"1) No they don't, youre confusing us with that communist shithole your padres fled from."

Yes they do. Unchecked spread of disease is a threat to public order and the government. There's a reason why preppers are armed to the teeth.

Rugian
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:22:29
"October 29, 2021 - 09:07 AM EDT

Vaccinated just as likely to spread delta variant within household as unvaccinated: study"

http://the...11anRzd3BtenVORTFDY1RkcExjYQ..
Rugian
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:23:42
"Unchecked spread of disease is a threat to public order and the government."

Thats such a communist thing to say.

Here in the land of liberty, the government solely exists to serve the people. It should not be protecting itself for its own sake.
murder
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:36:52

"Vaccinated just as likely to spread delta variant within household as unvaccinated: study"

Waning infections say otherwise. New variants are a different story.

murder
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:38:23

"Here in the land of liberty, the government solely exists to serve the people. It should not be protecting itself for its own sake."

The government was established by the people ... to maintain order. Also to protect patents and trademarks.

murder
Member
Fri Nov 05 19:40:44

It seems appropriate to post this here ...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Nov 07 07:10:00
[CC]: "They are the true insurrectionists"
[jergul]: "Sooo much projection. If guns aint your fetish, then projection is."

Thank you! The DNC has indeed been projecting the word "insurrection" when it is they who have demonstrated all of the benchmarks of insurrection, which I have listed numerous times. They have also continued their efforts to erode firearms rights (a "fetish", yes), though insurrection has been their primary end. I appreciate you agreeing with me that the DNC has an insurrection underway, Jergul. I think we've finally come to terms on some key issues. <3

..
[kargen]: "The Supreme Court ruled that states could mandate vaccinations for children. The federal government being allowed to do that was not part of the decision. "

Bingo. They're trying to set a precedent here by conflating issues. There's a reason that the George Washington meme of "mandating" smallpox vaccination for his troops has persisted in left-wing echo chambers: there has been no wide-scale example of *federal* vaccine mandates in U.S. history.

Wall Street Journal published a propaganda piece in April arguing "The Long History of Vaccine Mandates in America" ( http://archive.fo/pZxzp ), and, naturally, WSJ mentions George Washington. WSJ also mention a *city* order in Philadelphia and another military example. They mention Jacobson v. Massachusetts, but that Supreme Court decision was regarding a *city* mandate. They mention the Spanish Flu, but they drop the subject quickly because there was not actually a mandate at that time outside of the military. They also mention "all 50 states put laws on the books mandating vaccinations for school children" — but those were individual *state* mandates, *not* the federal government, and those mandates were for an à la carte list of diseases with extremely robust vaccines (e.g., smallpox and polio). PewResearch published a piece in October with some better details, albeit a propaganda headline ("States have mandated vaccinations since long before COVID-19"). Many diseases have seen vaccination mandates in some states but *not* in others (e.g., Hepatitis A vaccines have been required in only 17 or 18 states). I.e., states decide vaccination based on their own prerogatives.

People on the right have mocked, "[Why mandate vaccines? They should be mandating that fat people lose weight, since heart disease is still the number one killer!]" Yeah, sadly, that's the DNC's point. If they can mandate vaccines, then they can mandate public health via similar reasoning.

Part of the overall strategy of readying the U.S. for federal/universal health care is to demand that people meet regulations regarding health that the *federal* government can set. The DNC has seen how health care works in the military (which relates to the above use of military examples in the propaganda piece): all personnel have to receive certain protocols (i.e., vaccines and therapeutics), but the caveat in the military is that military personnel selection/recruitment is health-based. I.e., in order for "universal" health care to function in the military, the military only accepts people *without* pre-existing conditions (limited-use waivers aside). Thus, for the federal government to do the same, they have to control public health such that no one is "allowed" any pre-existing conditions. Of course, they cannot do this for innate conditions such as cancer (yet.. though, the long slide would be to eugenics), but with a federal vaccine mandate they will be on their way to mandating exercise and diet.

To those who think this might be a flimsy slippery slope argument, please see NYC's soda ban, consider the fascist state takeover (merging corporations and government), consider that corporations (via health insurance) have already begun punishment/reward programs for people who track their health via bio-trackers (Fitbit, Garmin, etc.), and consider how the federal government "owning" those health insurance programs would affect the power of those insurance-provider demands. A good example that's been making the rounds on Twitter is seat belts: very safe, yes, who could argue? But part of how seat belt laws were passed was a guarantee of state income via police stops and an income generator for insurance providers (i.e., fewer injuries in accidents, lower-cost payouts by insurance providers, thus, insurance providers were the major lobbyists for the law change).

And it absolutely does not stop at just vaccines. If a federal mandate succeeds, boosters will be included. For those drinking the Flavor Aid, this sounds great, but after boosters, flu shots will be mandated. Seem silly? Nope. Some colleges have already begun mandating flu vaccines simply because flu symptoms *seem* similar to COVID symptoms and they don't want to misdiagnose ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/10/21/flu-season-college-campuses/ ). If flu shots can be mandated, then there is an entry for conditions of similar health threats. People could be mandated to take certain drugs for not being chemically "stable" (for a fun example, recall the dystopian film "Equilibrium"). "Emergencies" can be declared for certain conditions, necessitating a new pharma drug (see also regulatory capture).

A federal mandate is a foot-in-door for a *lot* of corporate–DNC plans.

..
[kargen]: "One is no viable alternative and that might be why the government pushes back so hard on some of the other treatments some doctors are claiming will work."

Exactly. One of the statements on COVID vaccination forms (i.e., when signing away one's rights to retaliate for side effects at the point of vaccination) is that the Emergency Use Authorization cannot stand if there exist alternatives. This is why regulatory capture is so dangerous: it is financially beneficial for businesses such as Pfizer and Moderna to stop the government via the FDA from allowing alternative therapeutics and vaccines. It is also financially beneficial for these companies to *not* release a vaccine with better efficacy, since such a vaccine would mean no repeat-shots and no boosters. (And do note that the current "approved" "vaccines" have comparatively low efficacy against traditional vaccines but were allowed the title of "vaccine" nevertheless — a definition change justified by emergency use.)

Consider Johnson & Johnson's trouble: were the ban and subsequent low-volume federal vaccine-orders of J&J because of the J&J side effects (consider that Pfizer and Moderna likewise have dangerous side effects and that Moderna has even been banned in some countries due to its dangers), or was it because J&J was a one-and-done shot which cost $10 per shot whereas Pfizer was asking for about $35 per dose and Moderna $40–50 per dose? It seems likely that J&J was not well-placed for shareholder value (i.e., politicians doing their insider trading and corporate sponsorship), so it was pushed out of the market. J&J has been trying to break back into the market with more orders (i.e., appease politicians) by saying that boosters could be acceptable, but the government is not really pushing orders of J&J. This same story played out with the Ivermectin propaganda and the lack of approval of other viable therapeutics. If it's cheap or already available outside of emergency use, it is a competitor and not profitable to the fascist state.

..
[Rugian]: "Here in the land of liberty, the government solely exists to serve the people. It should not be protecting itself for its own sake."

"Governments should be afraid of their people."

..
[Rugian]: "Vaccinated people spread Covid just as effectively as the unvaccinated."
[murder]: "Waning infections say otherwise."

Do they? Have you not heard of the fun paradox of high-vaccination cities that have some of the highest hospitalization-rates? We're talking multi-variable analysis here, where vaccination is not even necessarily the best variable for low hospitalization and low death. Some papers have tried to evaluate the "caution-factor" of morbidity (e.g., http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91514-7 ), which speaks to hospitalization rates being more about cautions that individuals take. The best predictors of COVID death so far have just been items such as age, co-morbidities, and frequency of social contact ( http://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06369-0 ).

..
[Rugian]: "Here in the land of liberty, the government solely exists to serve the people."
[murder]: "for the United States of America."

Yes, thank you for agreeing with Rugian. The Constitution was indeed established for the states, which would only be united if the constitution were upheld.

..
Another development on the mandates: in parallel with their OSHA update on November 4th, the White House also issued a Fact Sheet separate from OSHA/CMS and the "Safer Federal Workforce Task Force" information:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/
A key section:
• "Employees falling under the ETS, CMS, or federal contractor rules will need to have their final vaccination dose – either their second dose of Pfizer or Moderna, or single dose of Johnson & Johnson – by January 4, 2022. This will ... ensure that federal contractors implement their requirements on the same timeline as other employers in their industries. And, the newly-released ETS will not be applied to workplaces subject to the federal contractor requirement or CMS rule, so employers will not have to track multiple vaccination requirements for the same employees."

The language of this is strange and contradicts the White House's other statements and the Task Force statements.

• The Task Force has not released new guidance since November 1st, so they still say on their website (as of this moment) that the federal contractor deadline is December 8th. Technically, Biden's EO (14043) gives the Task Force the power to set the deadlines, so the White House cannot just contradict them with their own fact sheet — the Task Force is the primary source, and their deadline for federal workers stands. Still, practically, it probably just means that the Task Force needs to update their website, since it's not like it has independent action from the White House.
• It's also sloppy that the White House Fact Sheet says, "the newly-released ETS will not be applied to workplaces subject to the federal contractor requirement or CMS rule", since, as the White House said in the *same* paragraph, the ETS has a separate deadline from the federal contractor requirement, but that deadline *will* "be applied to workplaces subject to the federal contractor requirement". They should have to identify the author of these press releases.

This could cause some confusion for federal contractors/sub-contractors. HR departments have already set firm deadlines of their own (e.g., people not self-reporting by a certain date will have termination procedures started), but this White House Fact Sheet makes it sound like the deadline was extended, which may force HR departments to adjust all of their other deadlines, undermining clarity even further. Optimistic right-wing groups already think that this "extension" means that the government is worried, so vaccine hold-outs will probably dig in their heels too. This White House is kind of a cluster fuck, isn't it.
murder
Member
Sun Nov 07 11:22:35

"People on the right have mocked, "[Why mandate vaccines? They should be mandating that fat people lose weight, since heart disease is still the number one killer!]" Yeah, sadly, that's the DNC's point. If they can mandate vaccines, then they can mandate public health via similar reasoning."

You can't tell the difference between an infectious disease and heart disease?

kargen
Member
Sun Nov 07 17:06:05
"Pfizer says that its COVID-19 pill reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 89%, in a clinical trial that tested the drug in adults with the disease who were also in high-risk health groups.

The oral medicine is called Paxlovid. Similar to Merck's new pill that was approved in the U.K. on Thursday, Pfizer said its drug showed good results when administered within five days of the first COVID-19 symptoms.

Based on the strength of the trial's results, Pfizer says it will stop enrolling people into more clinical trials for the pill and will instead send the results it has so far to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to seek emergency use authorization."

I would almost bet the FDA slow tracks this. If this is approved that would end any chance of the federal vaccine mandate being legal. It doesn't meet criteria now but an alternative would end all doubt.
murder
Member
Sun Nov 07 19:44:53

There are already treatments for covid. It's just that they are pretty expensive.

This shouldn't affect vaccination mandates at all.

kargen
Member
Mon Nov 08 23:31:13
Viable treatment being the key. The oral medication would be easily affordable. And since the viable treatment option was one of the two criteria they had to go on it should put to rest any federal mandate.
FDA could slow roll it so President Biden can keep on trying to oppress the people.

The other criteria that is being met is infection rate. It doesn't meet the criteria for death rate and I don't remember the 4th. It did fail to meet than one as well though.

States and businesses (especially businesses) get to play by different rules. That is why the states were able to mandate chickenpox vaccines and others where the federal government could not.
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Nov 09 06:19:27
[CC]: "If [corporate–DNC] can mandate vaccines, then they can mandate public health via similar reasoning."
[murder]: "You can't tell the difference between an infectious disease and heart disease?"

I can. The DNC, however, has actively pursued collapsing that distinction so they can mandate all public health at the federal level. Obamacare/ACA was a thing that definitely happened in this respect. A federal mandate is not an isolated incident for our fascist overlords.

..
On Saturday, 12 states *successfully* sued to stop the vaccine or test (OSHA/CMS) mandate, with a *temporary* stay on the order now in place via a federal appeals court:
[NPR, November 8th, 2021]
http://www...workers-faces-uncertain-future

In addition to the reasons above, a highlighted reasoning for the lawsuits was that the federal government is using the pandemic to enact its health care economics — i.e., using emergency authorizations to create permanent precedents which can and will be abused in the future.

A Democratic state (Iowa) has joined in with the mass-suing, and the total number of states suing the government over the mandates has now passed half of the states, with now 26 states having lawsuits in the water. This means some overlap between the states that had previously sued over the federal worker/contractor mandate and those states which have now sued over the OSHA/CMS mandate.

States that have lawsuits for both have an asterisk (*), and the state that only has OSHA/CMS has a plus (+) {this could change, of course}:

Arkansas *
Alaska *
Missouri *
Iowa *
Montana *
Nebraska *
New Hampshire *
North Dakota *
South Dakota *
Wyoming *
Texas
Florida *
Georgia
Alabama
Idaho
Kansas
South Carolina
Utah
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Ohio
Arizona +

Since the White House combined the deadlines of the separate mandates to January 4th, this could mean that the stay will affect both mandates, meaning that the January 4th deadline just shit the bed.

The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force has not updated its Fact Sheets or FAQs with any updated deadline (not even the January 4th one), which is concerning. Meaning, was the White House incompetent with its Fact Sheet, or did the Task Force just not update guidance yet? Still no word.

The White House was required to respond to the call for a permanent injunction on Monday, but the DOJ said that it has no reason to rule yet (per a pay-walled law.com article: http://www.law.com/2021/11/08/government-to-respond-to-vaccine-mandate-halt-on-monday/ ). The suing states must finalize paperwork by tomorrow night (November 9th), so the DOJ will probably respond by the end of the week.

NPR has been doing damage control with their foot-in-door rhetoric, saying that the OSHA/CMS mandate gives a testing option (so virtuous!), so [it's not a big deal!], ignoring that businesses would still be empowered to divide treatment of employees on those lines and force firings for those using the test option (e.g., if a person's job "necessitates" vaccines over masking and that person has no other department for transfer or cannot work at home, that person can no longer fill that role and will be fired). This goes back to Little Stalins again: the OSHA/CMS mandate relies on workers and employers to report themselves for non-compliance, since OSHA does not have the resources to investigate all affected businesses. In some cases, unvaccinated workers would be required to wear masks while vaccinated workers would face no requirement, with HR being flagged if people abuse the system, which would potentially force pariahs and cause more Panoptic social compliance (people wouldn't want dirty looks from left-authoritarians).

All this while Biden pushes for children to be vaccinated, since that's a key demo for extra Pfizer/Moderna sales. If we can start vaccinating pets, just imagine the revenue!!

Also, a reason to pay attention to all of this:
When the latest lawsuits were announced, Moderna crashed hard, closing at $278 on Friday and opening Monday at $233. Pfizer, meanwhile, spiked from $44 to $48 over the same period (their highest since late August, when the corporate–DNC propaganda began to wane, after which it fell and Biden lost his $$$$"patience"$$$$ with the unvaccinated).

J&J has been under the radar, but if it looks like mandate litigation will continue while the clock ticks on a new vaccine deadline, then J&J stock will increase significantly, especially after December 15th when it becomes the only option to meet the January 4th deadline. The White House has been expected to place a new order of J&J vaccines for months, and J&J boosters were approved in late October, which would mean J&J getting about $1 or $2 billion in revenue from the government in the coming weeks. The White House currently has to decide if they want to defeat the mandates quickly to cash in on Moderna and Pfizer (a better cash cow for them), or place the J&J order now so that they can at least rub that residual cocaine on their gums. J&J is kind of a dark horse move, but their performance has been stable enough that even if the government doesn't try to cash in on them, investing won't really be a loss.

Investors (and our "benevolent" insider-trading politicians) know that the success of the mandates is directly tied to their portfolios (#RegulatoryCapture), and Pfizer is best-placed to survive the lawsuits since it is FDA-approved under emergency use standards and now has a therapeutic.

So..
• If you think the lawsuits will fail, buy Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J now.
• If you think the lawsuits will succeed... diamond hands just for funsies? Or sell, whatever.

Push notifications every time Nancy Pelosi buys or sells is the new hotness, if you haven't heard. She's trying to cash in on "public health" before retirement.
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Nov 09 06:33:09
Amended list:
(this is true only if the AP knows the difference between the mandates)

Arkansas *
Alaska *
Missouri *
Iowa *
Montana *
Nebraska *
New Hampshire *
North Dakota *
South Dakota *
Wyoming *
Texas (no "+", but it prohibits any mandates by its own EO)
Florida *
Georgia *
Alabama *
Idaho *
Kansas *
South Carolina *
Utah *
West Virginia *
Kentucky *
Tennessee *
Ohio *
Arizona +
Louisiana +
Mississippi +
Oklahoma +
Dukhat
Member
Tue Nov 09 11:24:44
The DNC is so devious according to Cherub Cow. Can't believe they haven't impregnated me with woke babies yet as self-identified cis male.
Habebe
Member
Tue Nov 09 12:12:43
Dukhat, I guess it just goes to show that no one wants to fuck you.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Nov 10 06:37:47
[Dukhat]: "Can't believe they haven't impregnated me with woke babies yet as self-identified cis male."

Why would corporate–DNC's outspoken eugenicists want a white male to procreate? Wouldn't it be better to totally demoralize you, get you to concede all of your value without any direct conflict, and get you to opt out of the gene pool by choice? The programming works best when you decide to do this on your own. You could even see it as a virtue! Imagine the Great New World that awaits following your non-existence! \:D/
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Nov 18 10:06:57
-=-=-
-=-=-
TLDR for this comment:
• Fifth Circuit passed a **temporary** stay in effect for the OSHA mandate, and the Supreme Court may have to face the question of a permanent stay.
• This is a temporary stay while a permanent stay is litigated.
• This applies only to the OSHA/CMS mandate.
• It appears that — during the temporary stay — each day that passes after the November 12th filing pushes the January 4th deadline back by a day.
• The White House believes it can defeat this stay, but a lot of the stay's reasoning is sound and the Fifth Circuit sounds confident.
• The White House has not yet responded (maybe before the weekend?).

Also, regarding the federal worker/contractor/sub-contractor mandate:
• The federal worker deadline is Monday, November 22nd. We will find out Monday or Tuesday how many federal workers are unwilling to provide proof of vaccination, forcing the mandate's punishment protocols (e.g., firing, forced leave awaiting firing/compliance, re-education).
• Regarding the federal contractor/sub-contractor deadline, the "Safer Federal WorkForce Task Force" updated their guidance on November 10th, aligning their deadline with OSHA's previous deadline (i.e., it's a January 4th deadline, with "fully vaccinated" status mandated by January 18th).
• No word on whether the White House will be forced to re-align the federal contractor/sub-contractor deadline with the new (pending) OSHA/CMS deadline. The White House may well separate the deadlines again if they think they can beat one mandate stay's litigation and not the other.
• No word yet on whether the federal-contractor mandate has been stayed by the Circuit Courts.
• Texas added its name to the contractor ring. Previously, Texas had issued an EO banning any mandates, but they're now also suing and initiating a preliminary injunction to stop the contractor mandate ( http://www...es/Vaccine%20Mandate%20TRO.pdf )

-=-=-
-=-=-
Detailed update:

From OSHA.gov:
"On November 12, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a motion to stay OSHA's COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard, published on November 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg. 61402) ("ETS"). The court ordered that OSHA "take no steps to implement or enforce" the ETS "until further court order." While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation."
http://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2

A review by Jackson Lewis lawyers suggests that the deadline would be "tolled" while the permanent stay is litigated, which would mean that every day that passes during litigation would force the January 4th deadline back by one day.
http://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/fifth-circuit-hits-pause-osha-covid-19-vaccine-or-testing-emergency-standard
If so, that means that this temporary stay is already working in a positive way: it is buying more time.

The Fifth Circuit filing calls out the White House's end run and bad faith use of OSHA to force a mandate:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60845-CV0.pdf


My summary of the Fifth Circuit filing:

It talks about how the mandate takes no accounting of the differences in businesses and workers (e.g., working alone versus working in crowded spaces), only putting everyone under the umbrella/"cover" of 100 people or more in the business:
• "The mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address."

It also talks about how the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) really stretched itself to make occupational language regarding chemicals and toxins apply to an airborne virus, given that OSHA typically works with occupational hazards that are definitively present in a specific workplace or specific industry (e.g., chemicals and equipment). OSHA also normally deals with definitive levels of exposure to hazards (e.g., "x" amount of a chemical produces "y" risk and requires "z" precautions), whereas with a sweeping mandate and a virus with variable risks, there is only a vague sense of general exposure in effect. Under the OSHA mandate, a business with 100 young people working separately (low risk, low exposure) would be under the same umbrella as 100 elderly people working in close proximity (high risk, high exposure). The mandate also ignores that *certain* businesses with fewer than 100 people may be at a *higher* risk, so OSHA does not use a good umbrella (p15). OSHA normally requires individual businesses to assess their individual risks, but here it is ignoring those risk assessments and undermining a business' ability to "abate a recognized hazard under the general duty clause" (p14).

Per the White House's bad faith move, the stay points out that OSHA and the White House previously expressed no desire for a mandate. That is, now, even with cases falling, the White House and OSHA are claiming that the threat is only *now* a "grave danger", whereas, when cases were at their all-time high, OSHA admitted that it is *not* a "grave danger" and did *not* require an ETS. OSHA even said previously that a one-size-fits-all approach would provide "very little assistance at all". The White House via its OSHA puppet must thus produce clear reasoning why they *now* believe COVID to be a "grave danger" when it was not one before.

A big line that recognizes the issue of regulatory capture:
• "The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary" (p15).

Exactly. This is not about correctly assessing public health, this is about getting $$$$$$ shots into arms $$$$$ and setting unconstitutional precedents.

Also:
• "Courts have consistently recognized that the “protection afforded to workers [by an ETS] should outweigh the economic consequences to the regulated industry,” ... but for all the reasons we’ve previously noted, the Mandate flunks a cost-benefit analysis here" (p16).
• "the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power" (p16).
• "the major questions doctrine confirms that the Mandate exceeds the bounds of OSHA’s statutory authority. Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance”" (i.e., this is an issue for CONGRESS, since this ETS re-defines the role of OSHA) (p17).
• "Accordingly, the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate show a great likelihood of success on the merits, and this fact weighs critically in favor of a stay" (p18)
• "the mere specter of the Mandate has contributed to untold economic upheaval in recent months" (p20)

A "Hell yes" moment:
• "The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials" (p20).

Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Nov 22 21:38:44
Slightly OT but also not at all:

"I hate Big Pharma EXCEPT for Pfizer"
[Ryan Long Comedy, November 22nd, 2021]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_s5y9Ls83Q
jergul
large member
Tue Nov 23 04:26:21
"but for all the reasons we’ve previously noted, the Mandate flunks a cost-benefit analysis here"

Sure about that? The benchmark value of a human life is 10 million dollars.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Dec 01 14:21:43
"Court orders halt to federal contractor vaccine mandate in 3 states"
[Federal News Network; November 30th, 2021]
http://fed...ccine-mandate-in-three-states/

• Kentucky attorney general Daniel Cameron argued successfully; U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove issued a preliminary injunction on the federal contractor mandate; the injunction is now in place in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee (i.e., the contractor mandate cannot be enforced in those states while litigation occurs for a permanent injunction).
• "Judge Tatenhove noted. “It strains credulity that Congress intended the FPASA, a procurement statute, to be the basis for promulgating a public health measure such as mandatory vaccination,” he wrote. “If a vaccination mandate has a close enough nexus to economy and efficiency in federal procurement, then the statute could be used to enact virtually any measure at the president’s whim under the guise of economy and efficiency.”"
• "Judge Tatenhove explicitly wrestled with the question of whether he should issue a broader injunction that would have blocked the mandate in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Ultimately, he decided to block it only in the states who had sued in his court, and let the other cases “percolate” through other U.S. district and appellate courts."
• "“Not only are [nationwide] injunctions impracticable, they ‘force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,’” he wrote, quoting a 2020 opinion by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Careful review by multiple district and circuit courts, on the other hand, allows the Supreme Court the benefit of thoughtful and, at times, competing outcomes.”"

Sweet. This decision will go to the wider panel of Kentucky's Eastern District judges. It's likely that the Supreme Court will end up having to rule on this since it comes down to Executive Branch overreach.

While it would have been nice for the judge to apply the injunction over the entire U.S., his reasoning seems sound on limiting the scope. If the Supreme Court has to rule on multiple injunctions, they'll be forced to clarify reasoning on a number of vectors for government overreach.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Dec 01 16:03:34
The CMS mandate has also now been temporarily stayed in 10 states per a federal court ruling:
http://www...vaccine-mandate-only-10-states
Cherub Cow
Member
Sat Dec 04 11:50:30
Novavax stock has been tanking lately (probably intentionally so that politicians can be incentivized to buy low), which positions it for big shareholder gains in Q1 2022, since their vaccine could be approved for emergency use in January and is considered "2nd gen." (more robust molecule with higher efficacy). They also have Omicron shot development underway to entice shareholders (though, that's the same for Moderna and Pfizer).

Even if Novavax is *not* approved in January, they could have a repeat of last year's speculation. Last year, they projected that they'd be approved for emergency use and would have 2-billion doses ordered, so their stocks went from $123/share in late January to $329/share in early February before they ran into manufacturing issues and tanked. They could see Q1 2022 gains simply because there's a market for a better vaccine amongst the hesitant, and that may better position them even if injunctions against the mandates succeed.

Some details on Novavax release expectations here:
"A different kind of COVID vaccine is about ready to roll"
[NPR; December 1st, 2021]
http://www...vaccine-is-about-ready-to-roll

..
The vaccine litigation has not negatively affected Pfizer (still high), and with the CMS first-dose deadline occurring Monday, that opens the market high for Pfizer again.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sat Dec 25 02:00:55
Some quick updates:

• On December 7th, a Georgia Federal Judge ruled, "Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants are ENJOINED, during the pendency of this action or until further order of this Court, from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in any state or territory of the United States of America" (i.e., no states are bound by the federal contractor/sub-contractor mandates, pending litigation).
• On December 17th, the Eleventh Circuit sustained the injunction for Federal contractors/sub-contractors, which again means that no U.S. state can force its federal contractor/sub-contractor employees to comply with the January 4th / January 18th mandate deadlines.
http://www...-injunction-against-government
• This was echoed by the "Safer Federal WorkForce Task Force" (the White House -created agency which overseas the federal contractor/sub-contractor mandate), which issued an update saying, "Currently Excluded States and Outlying Areas: All of the United States and its outlying areas" ( http://www.saferfederalworkforce.gov/contractors/ )
• This was echoed by the Office of Management and Budget, which wrote, "[t]he Government will take no action to enforce the clause implementing requirements of Executive Order 14042, absent further written notice from the agency" ( http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/11th-circuit-refuses-to-stay-federal-1100836/ ).
• On December 18th, due to ongoing litigation, for clarity, CMS, despite having standing to enforce its mandate in states not affected by litigation, announced that it would NOT enforce its policy in ANY states: "[CMS] has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of [the mandate] pending future developments in the litigation" ( http://www.aha.org/news/blog/2021-12-01-blog-updates-legal-challenges-cms-vaccine-mandate-rule )

Primary reasons cited in the contractor injunction (via hklaw):
• "The president likely exceeded his authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), 40 U.S.C. §§ 101–126"
• "Complying with the mandate would impose an "extreme economic burden" on government contractors."
• "The court declined to address the plaintiffs' contentions that the mandate was unconstitutional and violated the nondelegation doctrine and Administrative Procedure Act"

Key dates to watch (from jdsupra and hklaw, above):
• January 3rd — by this date, the federal government must respond to the injunction.
• January 4th — the 2nd dose deadline passes (injunction makes this deadline moot).
• January 7th — oral arguments will appear before the Supreme Court for OSHA/CMS mandates.
• January 17th — suing states must answer the government.
• January 18th — the "fully vaccinated" deadline passes (injunction may affect this deadline, pushing it back or stopping it altogether)
• January 24th — the government must answer suing states again.


Other considerations:
• The government's underhanded method of announcing deadlines before litigation could take effect may benefit them here. That is, because many people believed that they needed to comply by December 8th and then by January 18th, many people quit their jobs or got vaccinated, potentially increasing the percentage of reported vaccinated persons in businesses. The government's racketeering thus forced compliance and artificially boosted their position. Thus, the DOJ may argue that "extreme economic burden" has become a moot point. This is why employees — even if they got vaccinated — should not have reported their status to their employers before the deadlines. Self-reporting aids the government's position. This is not about public health, this is about government setting precedent for the fascist control of bodies — a gateway to federal control of health care, citizen diet, and citizen conditioning. Even if you get vaccinated, you should not have to tell the government.
• Additional states have begun suing as well, so, even if these injunctions do not succeed, other injunctions have occurred in parallel with differing reasoning, meaning that injunctions can continue to push back on the deadlines.


This has been great news.
Lots of employees have begun breaking down under the process ("the process is the punishment", practice the tyrants), since there is a great deal of uncertainty with the deadlines shifting and companies sending out coercive emails and quietly working their own retaliatory practices (e.g.; HR contacting employees and their managers to update their status, employees then being contacted again by managers (How many managers have to mention TPS reports, Bobs?); HR dragging their feet on exemptions; employees not having clear word on enforcement and consequences). The media still has a black-out, but more and more legal sites have begun popping up to track these developments, making it easier for employees to stay informed.

Biden's totalitarianism pushed against the limits of Executive Order discretion here, and the Supreme Court may kick his shit in where it belongs: back in his diaper for Jill to change. Fuck the tyrants.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 26 03:42:29
Freedumb.

Not sure why companies should bear the burden of any employee based risk at all in free to work states.

Either employees act in the best interests of their companies, or they find some other place to work.

Retaliation? Dont be silly. Its freedom to work.
Cherub Cow
Member
Sun Dec 26 04:51:41
lol
Jergul with another steaming hot shit-take.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid
Member
Sun Dec 26 05:15:10
da vacsine gievs ppl audism biden wants evarie1 2 b da autism leik he is
Habebe
Member
Sun Dec 26 05:30:57
Yeah Jergul, your a real steaming bowl of mushrooms!
Dukhat
Member
Sun Dec 26 08:13:20
Cherub posts so much but its all boomer meme misconceptions. Read a book dumbass.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 26 09:54:19
CC
Reflect a little? Your waah freedumb argument does not cut water in States with stringent limits on worker's rights. Their feelings are simply not relevant in business decisions.

They have the right to leave and find work elsewhere if they don't like HR bothering them. Thats it.

I am not a fan, but that is the system in many states.
Rugian
Member
Sun Dec 26 13:50:38
jergul
large member Sun Dec 26 09:54:19
CC
Reflect a little? Your waah freedumb argument does not cut water in States with stringent limits on worker's rights. Their feelings are simply not relevant in business decisions.


jergul's perception of America sucks so much.

Yes jergul, those evil right to work states basically have neo-slavery, where the helpless peons have no recourse against their cigar-smoking top hat tycoons.

Jesus.
Rugian
Member
Sun Dec 26 13:54:32
Right to work status simply means that unions can't force workers to pay them dues if they don't want to.

In jerguland, this is the same thing as companies essentially owning their employees.

Wow.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 27 02:01:12
Ruggy
It obviously is not indentured servitude as anyone can leave. But it remains an earlier form of capitalism that was mostly done away with to block the popularity of communism in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s.

So, yah, of course employers in such states can demand, monitor, and enforce company vaccination mandates if they want to.

The employees on their part are free to quit and find new employment.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Dec 29 05:42:17
[Dukhat]: "Cherub posts so much but its all boomer meme misconceptions. Read a book dumbass."

Lol. Have to love the projection, since I've probably read far more than Dukhat has ever dreamed one could. I'm guessing that if Dukhat has even one book shelf, it's as colorful as a children's cereal section — i.e., filled with shallow pop-fiction.

On top of that, I am once again looking at the actual litigation, whereas Dukhat is probably looking at misinformed memes on Twitter. Once again I remind people: this story is barely being covered anywhere. Even the people who *do* cover it (a few indy journalists on the right) get it wrong. Dukhat, "You're welcome" for this, and you're lucky for having me around this place to cater to your abysmally low discourse level. Consider shutting the fuck up and learning something.

..
[Rugian]: "In jerguland, this is the same thing as companies essentially owning their employees."

Jergul can't help being retarded and having retarded takes. In a thread that's totally beyond his comprehension, he has to resort to some total non-sequitur garbage that has no basis in reality. He is so fucking retarded that he's talking about the rights of individual businesses ("employers in such states can demand, monitor, and enforce company vaccination mandates if they want to") in a thread that's talking about *federal* mandates that *supersede* private businesses. If he had read even the first paragraph ("People seem to be confusing..."), he would know that he's completely wrong, but he doesn't even have the brain power for *that*. So, he stumbles into the thread, throws out shit-takes like many low-IQ Twitter users would, and hopes that he can get some traction. He's once again proving that it's best to talk *over* him rather than *to* him. To a mind as feeble as Jergul's, we sound like Peanuts parents.
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 29 05:57:01
Dukhat more than anyone on these boards IMHO seems like he predominantly gets his news from Rachael Maddow.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 29 11:54:43
CC
Is that you trying to reflect? Try again. I am sure you can do better.

You have piss-poor labour regulations and a tradition of union busting. As a result, there is a huge power differential between labour and employer.

So, there is no recourse. If business is best done with vaccinated labour, then the labour will tend to become vaccinated.

Cry freedumb and let slip the sheep of waah.

You reap what you sow :).
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 29 11:57:32
And you prolly should cut back on Nietzche. Anyone who believes that shit has the slave mindset they so deplore.

Kinda ironic, eh?
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Jan 04 18:48:44
[jergul]: "Anyone who believes that shit has the slave mindset they so deplore."

Lulz. Further ignorance and idiocy :D
That's like saying, "Anyone who believes pasta is real is actually made of pasta. Checkmate, pasta-eaters!11!!" It is a total non sequitur from garbage thinking. Not to mention that it has nothing to do with this thread but is just Jergul yet again trying to derail to reduce the topic to the level of his ignorance, like a homeless person wandering into an opera and trying to be rewarded for changing the subject to publicly shitting himself.

..
[jergul]: "You have piss-poor labour regulations and a tradition of union busting. As a result, there is a huge power differential between labour and employer. [/] So, there is no recourse. If business is best done with vaccinated labour, then the labour will tend to become vaccinated."

Here's Jergul, still not understanding the situation.

Jergul, last chance to listen up, try to understand, or be ignored: this is NOT about individual businesses and "labour and employer" (that would be entirely separate litigation entertained by STATE litigators). This thread is in regards to the FEDERAL mandates initiated by Executive Orders. I.e., this is the FEDERAL government trying to decide with a one-size-fits-all mandate what they feel is best while IGNORING the imperatives of individual businesses and states. You are confusing STATE with FEDERAL. This has NOTHING to do with whatever red herring you're trying to introduce from your wholesale ignorance. Pay attention.

..
..
Back on topic with a quick update:

The government passed the January 3rd deadline to respond to the injunctions, so the OSHA, CMS, and federal contractor mandates are currently still not in effect by way of the federal judge injunctions (i.e., no federal mandates are in effect).
http://www...e-mandates-obtained-by-kansas/

Many businesses are still proceeding as though the mandate deadlines are in effect (likely because they do not know the situation), but because the injunctions have now passed the January 4th first-dose deadline without federal response, the deadlines will likely have to be adjusted (i.e., even if the injunctions are overturned, the current dates will become unenforceable, since citizens cannot be expected to retroactively comply). Businesses that attempt to enforce federal mandates during the injunctions will lose the protections that federal orders grant (For example, under an *enforceable* federal mandate, contractors would be granted immunity under "Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co.", "Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Servs., Inc.", and "Boyle v. United Techs. Corp"). In other words, businesses would be attempting to enforce something no longer backed by law (effectively referencing non-existent laws for justification), so they would open themselves to individual lawsuits from employees based on the same rulings that previously protected them.

The next deadline is January 7th (Friday) when OSHA and CMS arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court.
• If the White House has a strategy with the contractor mandate, it would probably be to see how they fair with OSHA and CMS on January 7th (how they evaluate their own arguments against the lawsuit arguments), since a perceived victory there could establish precedent for the contractor mandate. Another strategy note for them is the one they've had since the beginning: by delaying the issue, more people may comply out of frustration, fear, and ignorance; forcing the injunction to become a moot point.
• If they do not have a strategy but have merely fallen behind due to the holidays, then their response to the contractor mandate could arrive at any date. The catch, though, is that by delaying for too long, they would also move back the January 17th response deadline (i.e., states could respond *after* the 2nd dose deadline of January 18th), which gives more ground for suing states to further delay and even overturn the dose deadlines.

After January 7th, the Supreme Court will have to research the relevant laws cited in the injunctions before giving a ruling. Often this takes six weeks, which in itself would mean that the injunctions have already succeeded, but it's possible that they would rule more quickly due to the deadlines. The rest of the week should be interesting.
jergul
large member
Tue Jan 04 19:57:37
CC
Nah, it is about recognizing anyone insecure enough to reference Nieztche/Jung's slave state mentality in casual discussion is suffering from being caught in it.

I am referring to federal requirements that contractors wishing to work for the federal government have company vaccine mandates.

So

No matter how it pans out in court, it is just good business sense to align with customer expectations. In the case of the feds, the expectation that your company workforce is vaccinated.

So employees can and should expect to be pressured by their employers to get vaccinated if they wish to continue employment there.

The question is companies enforcing their company policies. Those policies do not have to be backed by a Federal mandate.

Do try to keep up.

Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Jan 04 23:16:07
Lol. Jergul once again proving what a fucking idiot he is. He couldn’t be bothered to understand the topic, so now he’s making slight adjustments to his argument as corrective fire. Sadly, he’s still wrong, but he’s too fucking stupid to know which part of his post is false, despite me explaining it dozens of times in this thread. This irredeemable fuckwit is absolutely terminal :D
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 00:36:50
CC
My scope is only valid as a response to anywhere you typed "employer" or "employee"

Just because you generate walls of text does not mean you can expect every commentary is going to cover all aspects of your rants.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 00:37:48
CC
My scope is only valid as a response to anywhere you typed "employer" or "employee"

Just because you generate walls of text does not mean you can expect every commentary to cover all aspects of your rants.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 00:39:51
Its funny how you republitards always think private companies are freedumb arenas.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jan 05 05:13:22
Lulz. Jergul's method is always hilarious to behold :D

This seems to be the persistent "Jergul Method":

• Step 1: Belly-flop into a thread like a t-shirted fat boy at a water park who didn't want to walk to the bathrooms.
• Step 2: Do not address the central issue of the thread.
• Step 3: Do not read the thread. If the thread is "too long", that's the OP's fault and in no way implicates Jergul's poor attention span, low intelligence, laziness-justifying Lutheranism, and non-existent reading comprehension ;D
• Step 4 (Option 1): Scan the thread for key words, find some random sentence out of context, respond to that one sentence with a straw man or shit-take, and hope people respond to your shit-take so that you can be involved despite having nothing to offer regarding the central issue of the thread.
• Step 4 (Option 2): Use Cunningham's Law to force people to summarize what's going on in the thread so that you can be involved; i.e., say something so completely false and idiotic that people bend down to your level to correct it. This way, people are forced to "teach" you what's going on in the thread, and you only have to look at direct responses to your comments.
• Step 5: If people teach you what's going on, use blatant revisionism to pretend that you knew the things that they taught you all along while ignoring that anyone can easily point out that you clearly did not know what was going on in your previous responses.
• Step 6: When exposed as an idiot, use, "No you!" logic, trying pathetically to insist that *other* people must be deficient even though you're the one who cannot construct a simple sentence or a rational and insightful argument — something you have perhaps never done in your entire irrelevant life.
• Step 7: Tell yourself that it's a good thing that it's sometimes unclear if you're just a fucking idiot or a helpless troll while ignoring that a life spent practicing either behavior has perhaps made you into both.

May laughter follow Jergul the Fool wherever he goes! :D
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 05:34:56
CC
So much opinion, so little substance, but yet, so many, many, many words.

1. Private companies are not freedumb arenas.
2. Companies can mandate vaccines at the workplace.

Deal with it.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jan 05 05:36:51
[jergul]: "So much opinion, so little substance, but yet, so many, many, many words."

Jergul Method, Step 3: "Do not read the thread. If the thread is "too long", that's the OP's fault and in no way implicates Jergul's poor attention span, low intelligence, laziness-justifying Lutheranism, and non-existent reading comprehension ;D"
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jan 05 05:39:44
[Jergul]: "1. Private companies are not freedumb arenas.
2. Companies can mandate vaccines at the workplace."

Applicable Jergul Method steps:
• Step 2: Do not address the central issue of the thread.
• Step 4 (Option 1): Scan the thread for key words, find some random sentence out of context, respond to that one sentence with a straw man or shit-take, and hope people respond to your shit-take so that you can be involved despite having nothing to offer regarding the central issue of the thread.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 07:47:45
CC
Just don't pretend private companies are freedumb arenas that cannot have company policies on the vaccination status of their employees, mkay?

I know it is hard for you to grasp, but do try.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Jan 05 09:15:15
Cherub never makes sense. He's a try-hard who never interacts with intelligent people in the real world.

Intelligent people provide citations and evidence to make their arguments.

Unintelligent people scream about fake news and everything is a conspiracy and then posit their assumptions as facts.

So him accusing others of being stupid is the deepest of irony.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 11:40:07
I am not sure you are using the person's preferred gender.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jan 05 18:14:43
[Jergul]: “Just don't pretend private companies are freedumb arenas that cannot have company policies on the vaccination status of their employees, mkay?”

Applicable Jergul Method steps:
• Step 2: Do not address the central issue of the thread.
• Step 4 (Option 1): Scan the thread for key words, find some random sentence out of context, respond to that one sentence with a straw man or shit-take, and hope people respond to your shit-take so that you can be involved despite having nothing to offer regarding the central issue of the thread.

..
[Dukhat]: “Intelligent people provide citations and evidence to make their arguments.”

Aw! Thanks, Dukhat! It’s very kind of you to call me intelligent :)

I did spend a good amount of time finding primary sources for this thread. As you can see, regarding mandate litigation, I linked scholarly legal websites, the White House’s press releases (rather than articles merely talking about those press releases), the PDFs from the actual regulatory bodies overseeing the mandates (as opposed to people merely talking about those bodies), and the original PDFs of the actual lawsuits complete with their reasoning and their own citations. Most people would just stupidly think that I saw this on “Faux News” or something, so I appreciate you recognizing that my commentary in this thread is sourced directly from the primary sources. I asked for you to read the thread, and — if you recognized my citations and evidence — it seems that you have, so thank you!! <3 :) :) :)
nhill
Member
Wed Jan 05 21:27:47
Thus marketh the beginning of CherubDuckHat, the celebrity name for UP's hottest new couple!
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 05 23:48:36
CC

"Ruggy: I feel like this post is too much effort for UP"

CC: It was at least no extra effort for me, since I typed it up for another site and only copy&pasted it for here"

So, yah. I looked at something that interested me and commented on it.

My point stands:

“Just don't pretend private companies are freedumb arenas that cannot have company policies on the vaccination status of their employees, mkay?”
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 06 00:46:49
[Jergul]: "So, yah. I looked at something that interested me and commented on it. [/] My point stands: [/] “Just don't pretend private companies are freedumb arenas that cannot have company policies on the vaccination status of their employees, mkay?”"

Applicable Jergul Method steps:
• Step 2: Do not address the central issue of the thread.
• Step 4 (Option 1): Scan the thread for key words, find some random sentence out of context, respond to that one sentence with a straw man or shit-take, and hope people respond to your shit-take so that you can be involved despite having nothing to offer regarding the central issue of the thread.
• Step 6: When exposed as an idiot, use, "No you!" logic, trying pathetically to insist that *other* people must be deficient even though you're the one who cannot construct a simple sentence or a rational and insightful argument — something you have perhaps never done in your entire irrelevant life.
• Step 7: Tell yourself that it's a good thing that it's sometimes unclear if you're just a fucking idiot or a helpless troll while ignoring that a life spent practicing either behavior has perhaps made you into both.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 06 00:56:57
My point stands:

“Just don't pretend private companies are freedumb arenas that cannot have company policies on the vaccination status of their employees, mkay?”

Fun!
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 06 00:58:04
Now, why you would choose to engage in a spam war in your own thread is beyond me.
Dukhat
Member
Thu Jan 06 01:50:56
His posts are mostly spam. Fucking deadbeats who don't go back to school and/or improve their lives and engage in endless wars online trying to convince others what can't stand the light of day in the real world.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 06 02:44:54
[Jergul]: "Now, why you would choose to engage in a spam war in your own thread is beyond me."

I'm glad that you, a UP moderator who is on record abusing his powers in the past, have admitted that you're spamming this thread. Or do you think that a "spam war" omits yourself? FYI, it does not.

Jergul Method, Step 7:
"Tell yourself that it's a good thing that it's sometimes unclear if you're just a fucking idiot or a helpless troll while ignoring that a life spent practicing either behavior has perhaps made you into both."

I'll ignore Jergul for the rest of the thread, though, since it is well-established here that Jergul uses the Jergul Method and is a troll and an idiot.

..
..
Big Litigation updates:

• (Contractor Mandate Update)
January 5th, 2022, "the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the Biden Administration's request for a stay of a lower court injunction barring enforcement of a COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees of federal contractors in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee."
The opinion from the Sixth Circuit:
[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (dot org); January 5th, 2022]
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0002p-06.pdf

From Judge Bush of the Sixth Circuit, from the opinion:
"[The suing states] collectively alleged that nothing in the Property Act authorizes the contractor mandate, that the contractor mandate violates various other federal statutes, and that its intrusion upon traditional state prerogatives raises serious constitutional concerns under federalism principles and the Tenth Amendment. The district court agreed. It enjoined enforcement of the contractor mandate throughout Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. It also denied the subsequent motion of the federal-government defendants to stay the injunction pending appeal. The government now comes to us with the same request. But because the government has established none of the showings required to obtain a stay, we DENY such relief."

I.e., another (parallel) injunction was just upheld by federal courts, so the government's position on the federal contractor mandate was just rejected by another circuit. That makes three circuits that have successfully sued the government over the federal contractor mandate, and this means three separate injunctions in parallel which will have to be addressed individually on the merits (the three separate injunctions argue different points and so must be addressed independently). The next step is again the government's response, but because the government has still not responded to the former injunctions, I again suspect that we will not hear anything until after the OSHA/CMS arguments are heard by the Supreme Court on Friday.

Additionally, on January 4th, a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of federal contractors by the New Civil Liberties Association (NCLA):
[NCLA Legal (dot org); January 4th, 2022]
http://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/ECF-1_Complaint.pdf

This lawsuit has reasoning similar to that of the three active contractor-injunctions, but it additionally argues on behalf of federal workers and contractors as people who were given shifting deadlines and uncertainties in a malicious fashion (bingo). They're seeking an injunction, and, if granted, that would mean a rolling cycle of injunctions that would have to be repeatedly faced by the higher courts, meaning that injunctions could be sustained until the government's position becomes moot.


• (CMS Mandate Update)
CMS had previously upheld the injunctions in all 50 states and all affected territories (i.e., no vaccine mandate allowed in 50 states under CMS), but they have now preemptively created new deadlines for only 25 states (those not listed in the lawsuits) in case the Supreme Court upholds the government's position following Friday's (January 7th's) oral arguments.
[CMS (dot gov)]
http://www.cms.gov/About-CMS/Agency-Information/Emergency/EPRO/Current-Emergencies/Current-Emergencies-page

But, whereas the original CMS deadline was January 4th (2nd dose), now the preliminary deadline (first dose) is January 27th, and the 2nd dose deadline is February 28 — but, again, only in the 25 states not currently enjoined (listed in the link above), and this position is only legally binding if the Supreme Court rules in the government's favor.


• (Federal Worker Mandate Update)
I've hardly covered federal *workers* (as opposed to contractors/sub-contractors, though they're covered by the same Executive Order: 14042) at all because their position is pretty untenable without exemptions (i.e., the federal government's ability to mandate for its own direct employees is a stronger position). But, a lawsuit regarding those exemptions was sustained via an injunction: 26 Navy SEALs and a number of other special operations warfighters represented by District Judge Reed O'Connor on January 3rd, 2022 sustained an injunction (originally filed in October, 2021, when the federal mandates began to have impact) to stop actions against servicemembers requesting religious exemptions.

The Ruling by Judge O'Connor:
http://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.355696/gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.66.0.pdf

The judge found that — in addition to Constitutional violations — the Navy's practice of handling exemptions was designed to prevent *any* exemptions. To date, not a single religious accommodation has been granted in the military, with the exemption process requiring about 15 sign-offs with each signature itself encouraging the signer to not approve the exemption. The judge also cites that doses no longer represent the only options against COVID, with treatment options expanding and military hospitals well capable of administering these treatments and military personnel (spec-ops forces, no less) already being a low-risk group.

This one is particularly interesting because many U.S. Servicemembers have *already* been discharged for not complying after their exemptions were denied. If this injunction continues through subsequent decisions, the government could be on the hook for the wrongful termination of servicemembers who applied for exemptions (i.e., those discharged servicemembers could be reinstated and would be due back pay and possible bonuses). However, given that the lawsuit specifically cites the exemption forms used in the military (arguably the most problematic aspect and thus the aspect most likely to be upheld), this would potentially hold a narrow effect. I.e., subsequent rulings may dissent in part while upholding complaints against the exemption process.


TLDR; Updates:
• Federal Contractor Mandate: Another Circuit injunction upheld in parallel and another lawsuit in the water asking for a parallel injunction.
• CMS Mandate: Still an injunction in place in 25 states, with 25 states now having an adjusted first dose deadline (January 27th) which is not legally binding without a Supreme Court decision.
• Federal Worker Mandate: Navy SEALs and special forces servicemembers who sued in October were granted an injunction which may extend to any servicemembers applying for exemptions; this will head to additional federal judges.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 06 02:51:06
[Dukhat]: "His posts are mostly spam. Fucking deadbeats who don't go back to school and/or improve their lives and engage in endless wars online trying to convince others what can't stand the light of day in the real world."

lol. Yeah, Jergul is a crazy spammer. And yeah, he's clearly not well educated. We keep agreeing on things, Dukhat! <3 <3 <3 :D
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 06 04:28:02
He was talking about you CC. I can only say I am sorry he does not use your chosen gender when talking about you.

I would try not to take it to heart. We all know you prefer to be addressed as a she, you have cats and a master's degree in English Lit.

That is why we lovingly call you the crazy cat lady :).
Habebe
Member
Mon Jan 10 05:47:07
http://youtu.be/7d2BMamofIE

Anyone catch sotomayers covid claims?
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 10 07:08:44
From Friday:
"Supreme Court hears arguments on COVID-19 vaccine mandates and testing policies"
[January 7th, 2022]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5fSVWklG6c
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 10 07:09:07
Above is the entirety of the nearly 4-hour oral arguments (audio only, since the Supreme Court has found that they do not want video of the Court). Below are the transcripts (OSHA and then CMS), though people have noted some minor mistakes by the court reporter:
[Supreme Court (dot gov) Arguments Index; see 21A240 and 21A244]
http://www...ments/argument_transcript/2021
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 10 07:09:41
The Supreme Court may actually rule on this quickly since this was an emergency session (time-sensitive subject). Some people suspect it could take less than a week, others two weeks. The panic of the liberal justices suggest that they'll rule today (Monday) while the calmness of the conservative justices suggests a week or two. I'd guess Wednesday or sooner, since panic tends to tip the scale.

This academic Supreme Court blog did a fair and brief write-up if people want someone else's summary:
"Court seems poised to block vaccine-or-test policy for workplaces but may allow vaccine mandate for health care workers"
[By former Supreme Court litigator Amy Howe; January 7th, 2022]
http://www...ndate-for-health-care-workers/

My summary:

Key details from the CMS arguments:
• Based on the questions asked by the Justices, the CMS mandate seems somewhat likely to be upheld (or a split decision), since Justices had fewer complaints with health-care workers taking precautions (i.e., there exists more precedent for that).
• The CMS mandate was tenuous as a manipulation, however. Several Judges recognized that the CMS mandate was using the Secretary's administrative powers to bypass its best practices powers (i.e., CMS' powers of best practices (e.g., proper use of equipment, proper hygiene) do not include mandates, so the government is attempting to expand the Secretary's administrative powers; they essentially tagged "vaccines" onto any mention of "health and safety" in the CMS administrative guidelines)
• The liberal justices basically argued that CMS should be able to bypass whatever law it needs to in order to effect a mandate. Kagan and Breyer's arguments were particularly authoritarian and emotional here.

Key details from the OSHA arguments:
• The OSHA mandate seems far more tenuous. The justices had far more questions about OSHA and seemed to agree that it's a problem for OSHA to make this decision without an Act of Congress.
• The justices were particularly concerned with how OSHA would decide duration (it was even asked if the government thought that OSHA could potentially have this in place in two years even with more treatments available; the government tried to deflect but ultimately answered, "Yes".).
• Kagan and Breyer kept trying to derail with pathos arguments about the number of infected.

Political issues:
The liberal justices seem to be in the thick of the DNC perspective on the subject (not surprising, but it's perhaps alarming that misinformation has reached them as well). In one case, Sotomayor was chastised after-the-fact for an erroneous claim about children being hospitalized with Omicron ("over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators"). The liberal justices in particular seem to think that the pandemic is far worse than it is, and the subject of therapeutics and alternate treatments was only raised once, despite the government giving a major attack vector by repeatedly saying that vaccines provide the "best" control.


Based on the questions asked, my expectation regarding their decisions:

CMS (5/4)
Stay the injunction: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Uphold the government: Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch
{This might *seem* like a win, but I think the big ones to watch for a surprise flip will be Gorsuch and Barrett. Barrett may flip just to prove that she's an independent new justice, but her questions indicate that she'll stay the injunction. Gorsuch's questions seemed middling on CMS.}

OSHA (6/3)
Stay the injunction: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch
Uphold the government: Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
{Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan didn't offer substantive arguments, they just want to grant emergency powers. Everyone else asked difficult questions.}
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 10 07:09:59
My Notes (I tried to minimize opinion, but...):
8:00 — Necessary and Proper arguments with Justice Clarence Thomas.
13:00 — Justice Kagan argues that it's an emergency and argues that vaccinations are "the best" policy: she asks, "Why isn't that 'necessary'?" (DNC arguments)
16:00 — Keller argues that states can determine 'necessary'.
19:00 — Justice Breyer asks about urgency, stay requirements, the public interest, and balance of harms. (DNC arguments)
22:00 — Keller argues billions of unrecoverable costs.
23:00 — They argue ambiguity in the major questions doctrine.
24:30 — Justice: Why an immediate stay?
Keller answer: immediate resignations by masses of the job sector if injunction not stayed.
26:00 — Keller agrees that 'necessary', as defined by OSHA, was their claim of protecting unvaccinated workers.
29:30 — Justice Kagan strangely says, "This is not a vaccine mandate ... it's something totally different."
Kagan asks why OSHA should not have a national rule for vaccination?
32:00 — Keller argues that Congress needs to delineate those powers.
Kagan interrupts and argues against Keller's argument that machines are specific to workplaces. She argues that people are machines "spewing" diseases.
34:00 — Kagan argues that this is a politically accountable policy informed by expertise that could be voted out. She asks why the Courts should decide.
35:00 — Keller argues that OSHA is not under HHS and does NOT have expertise.
36:00 — Kagan re-states her argument.
36:30 — Keller argues that OSHA has not tailored this to individual businesses.
37:00 — Kavanaugh asks about major questions doctrine, asking how we determine what "rises to the level".
38:30 — Keller argues that the scope would need to be limited and would need to have less impact on industries.
39:50 — Kavanaugh asks about 'necessary' versus 'appropriate'.
40:20 — Keller says that OSHA is not the agency that has expertise for this.
41:00 — Justice Barrett asks for clarification: if OSHA had limited its scope, would Keller still contest this? I.e., does he agree that this is a "grave danger"?
42:40 — Keller explains different applications and says that the OSHA ETS is beyond 'necessary', and 'grave danger' requires industry-to-industry analysis. Economy-wide rules should not fall under OSHA.
44:30 — Flowers re-states their position: While it is good to pursue an end to the pandemic, "OSHA cannot pursue this goal unlawfully"
47:30 — Justice Kagan asks Flowers if any businesses have been unaffected by COVID? I.e., how is this a "blunderbuss approach"? She interrupts Flowers' explanation. She argues that people cannot avoid their workplace — "where else do people have a greater risk than at the workplace?"
49:55 — Flowers argues that people are more at risk in dense settings. OSHA is not mandating with regard to density, indoors versus outdoors, etc.
51:00 — Flowers argues that OSHA is not making the argument that they are aware of differences in workplaces.
51:40 — Justice finds it unbelievable to stop mandates. He argues that people will quit if they have to work with the unvaccinated.
54:00 — Flowers argues that OSHA cannot require something that cannot be undone (vaccination), vaccines do not appear to be effective in stopping transmission but are effective at controlling consequences.
55:40 — Justice Kagan incorrectly states that Omicron is as deadly or more deadly than previous variants. She makes her "100,000 children" error.
57:00 — Justice Kagan asks what is "irrational" about the mandates.
Flowers says that he did not argue that it's irrational.
Kagan asks what's different between the states and federal government with regards to mandates. Flowers' audio breaks up at this point.
58:30 — Justice Thomas asks for Flowers' thoughts on vaccines in the workplace.
Flowers reads vaccinated/unvaccinated statistics. He cites that the effects of COVID vary by demographic, indicating that individual workplaces should be able to consider their vulnerability. He also argues that OSHA can only step in when there are specific risks in specific workplace scenarios — OSHA did not establish this with a general mandate.
1:04:00 — 'Grave danger' subject raised by Justice Alito.
1:06:00 — Justice Kagan suggests that it's not just the risk to the vaccinated (which OSHA says is not a risk) but the risk to other people. She does not understand how risk factors for individual groups matters.
Flowers explains that different age groups have different risk factors.
Kagan suggests that there is still a risk, and there may be a grave risk.
1:08:40 — Justice Kagan gets very mean and sarcastic here. She's in the signal.
Flowers argues that OSHA did not provide a narrow solution.
1:11:00 — Justice Gorscuh asks again about the major questions doctrine.
Flowers argues that Congress is limited by how many powers they can give away to the federal government. This would be the largest amount of power ever given away by the United States.
1:14:00 — Justice Kavanaugh asks if that power should be given away in an emergency.
Flowers says that if that power is given away, it must be done by Congress in thoughtful debate — not mandated away by the federal government.
1:16:00 — Prelogar begins her arguments on behalf of OSHA.
1:17:20 — Justice Thomas asks if her complaint is with employees or employers. Prelogar does not answer when asked on two occasions.
The third time, Prelogar explains that both employees and employers may not impose standards. She thinks OSHA will accommodate both concerns.
1:19:00 — Justice Thomas asks if OSHA "could" mandate for *any* infectious disease.
Prelogar says, "Yes."
Thomas asks for examples.
Prelogar cites blood-born pathogens.
1:21:00 — Chief Justice Roberts asks Prelogar about how she's going agency-to-agency as a "workaround" (the language Prelogar has used to find legal remedy). He asks why OSHA is bypassing Congress.
1:23:00 — Prelogar argues that the OSH Act of 1970 was Congress saying that they authorize this.
1:24:20 — Roberts asks why she's using multiple agencies.
Prelogar says that asking multiple agencies should not diminish their usage of those agencies towards their goal of mandates. Jesus. :|
1:26:00 — Justice Breyer cuts to the chase and asks if the White House can require any vaccine it wishes.
1:28:00 — Prelogar is not aware of any precedent.
1:29:40 — Justice Alito asks about a stay. He asks if it's okay for them to argue for "a couple of days".
Prelogar says that it would be fine to issue an administrative stay.
Alito asks if this grave harm exists at all times — even during an administrative stay?
Prelogar leaves that to the courts but says this is a grave danger.
They ask what a "brief stay" means.
1:33:00 — Justice Breyer does the math on the consequences of a stay regarding infection rates.
1:34:30 — Justice Sotomayor asks what the fall-back would be during a stay (e.g., masks).
Prelogar says that she does not think an administrative stay is necessary, "but I of course defer to the Court on that."
Sotomayor asks what Congress could do to act via OSHA properly (regarding inspections of workplaces). "Who is in a better position to act?"
1:37:00 — Prelogar cites Section 655(c) of the OSHA ETS.
1:38:00 — Justice Roberts points out that Congress' OSHA ruling in 1970 did not have COVID in mind — "certainly unfamiliar to Congress in 1970"
Prelogar suggests there is evidence to "justify the scope of the standard."
1:41:40 — Justice Thomas asks if a vaccine is the only way to treat COVID.
Prelogar says it's the best way.
1:42:00 — Justice Alito points out that this mandate affects people both on and off the job.
Prelogar admits that OSHA does not have the authority to regulate people outside of their jobs, which vaccination effectively does.
Alito has to keep Prelogar on point.
1:46:00 — Kagan talks about risk management in a regulatory space.
Justice Alito points out the contradiction of unvaccinated workers being a risk to vaccinated workers — something Prelogar stated here but which was not an argument of the OSHA mandate.
1:49:00 — Sotomayor asks for clarity: "There's no vaccine mandate here, correct?"
"That's correct."
1:51:00 — Kagan asks about major questions doctrine.
1:54:00 — Justice Gorsuch asks about major questions doctrine.
Gorscuh asks what questions she *would* consider ambiguous and thus needing Congressional approval.
1:57:30 — He asks why OSHA doesn't mandate flu shots.
Prelogar thinks that OSHA *could*.
2:00:00 — Kavanaugh addresses major questions doctrine.
Prelogar lists the other OSHA rulings, and Kavanaugh counters with the dissenting opinions in those cases.
2:04:00 — Kavanaugh mentions President Bush's warning of this same issue.
2:06:00 — Justice Barrett asks about 'necessary' and 'reasonable' (speed versus OSHA' normal regulatory authority).
Prelogar tries to deflect to that being the defense's argument. Barrett gets her back on topic. She says that vaccines are the best method.
2:10:00 — "So when does the emergency end?" (i.e., when do people have a voice in the process?)
Prelogar says that it could conceivably not end, and she does not give specifics regarding when OSHA might reevaluate and decide if COVID no longer presents a 'grave danger'
2:12:30 — Keller's rebuttal.
"And finally, when it comes to the public interest as this Court just recognized a few months ago, it is undisputable that the public has a strong interest in combatting the spread of the COVID-19 delta variant but our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully, even in pursuit of desirable ends."

[end of OSHA arguments] /
2:17:30 — [start of CMS arguments]
Brian Fletcher gives his opening arguments.
"The risk of some temporary staffing shortages is outweighed by the urgent need to protect all Medicare and Medicaid patients during a deadly pandemic"
2:20:00 — Justice Thomas asks for clarification on 1302(a)
Fletcher explains that the Secretary made vaccinations an additional requirement for employment.
Thomas asks if this has been done in the past.
Fletcher says, "No."
2:22:30 — Thomas asks if an administration statute should apply to a vaccination requirement.
Fletcher argues that it's 'necessary'.
2:24:20 — Chief Justice Roberts asks which is the most acute danger: OSHA, CMS, or the federal contractor mandate.
Fletcher says that it's a unique threat.
Roberts points out that Fletcher did not make his argument from the realm of the affected agencies (i.e., Fletcher did not cite OSHA, CMS, and federal contractors — the point being that Fletcher is simply wielding these agencies to affect the most people).
2:27:00 — Sotomayor asks about this in terms of a spending clause. She asks if this is "unprecedented" regarding the cost to businesses and health care workers.
Fletcher says that the greatest cost will be in terms of the government's spending on vaccines. He minimizes "compliance cost".
2:28:30 — Justice Alito asks if the Secretary has limits on mandate authority (i.e., can he mandate anything?).
Fletcher seems to indicate that the Secretary can conceivable mandate whatever he wants "as the Secretary finds necessary."
Alito asks if there is an limit.
"The Secretary has to find that it's a requirement that's in the interest of patient health and safety, as the Secretary did here."
Alito asks, "One of the arguments on the other side is that you were required by
statute to consult with the states before you did this. What is your response to that?"
Fletcher says that they don't have to until after-the-fact. Alito points out the strange logic of this.
2:34:00 — Justice Barrett brings up the language of health and safety in (or not in) the statutes.
"[In an Omnibus Rule], what if I think some of the provisions might support you and others don't?"
Fletcher says, "we think that this is the paradigmatic health and safety
regulation, and that's reinforced by the consensus of the medical community, by other regulators, by practices of providers."
Barrett says, "So I understand that your position is that all of these granted the Secretary authority, but what if I disagree?"
Fletcher basically says that he thinks that his Gish-Gallop should be admitted since the overall claim is 'health and safety'.
2:39:00 — Sotomayor asks for clarity and restates his point to help him out:
"generalized authority is well documented by the fact that in the vast
majority of these at least 11, if not 12, of these specific rules, they referenced health and safety directly."
2:41:00 — Fletcher addresses staffing shortages. He says that people eventually comply when the mandate is imposed. He says that healthcare turnover is high anyways, so they can accommodate more turnover from a mandate.
2:43:00 — They talk about the agency's skirting of the 60-day time limit that was bypassed or minimized in this case.
2:45:00 — Justice Gorsuch points out that Congress specifically prohibited that the Secretary could control the tenure of employees at covered facilities. He asks why this regulation does not bypass that prohibition. "Where is the line?"
Fletcher admits, "The line may be hard to draw when you get out towards the more
granular controls ... setting standards for employees does not exercise control."
2:52:00 — Kavanaugh asks why CMS has not previously required flu vaccines.
Fletcher says that COVID is unique here.
2:53:00 — Barrett asks about the Secretary's authority via the general grant.

2:54:00 — Jesus Osete offers opening statement on behalf of the lawsuit.
"Traditionally been within the province of the states"
"The rule is arbitrary and capricious under the APA"
"Shift from encouraging vaccination to mandating it"
"imminent crisis" for local communities which would face a "fatal" threat with loss of workers.
2:56:00 — Justice Thomas begins questions regarding preemption issue and standing (e.g., parens patriae).
2:59:00 — Chief Justice Roberts asks about the spending clause's broad authority here.
3:00:00 — In response to Osete's argument, Justice Kagan makes a pathos argument regarding the Secretary's role here. She talks about vulnerable populations and skirts the topic of equity.
Osete talks about the statute altering the balance between state and federal.
Kagan tries to derail, but Osete points out the difference between statutes where the government is clearly trying to use non-applicable statutes with regards to mandates in order to use administrative controls where they do not have authority over health and safety.
Justice Breyer asks about diphtheria.
3:05:00 — Judge Kagan again tries to derail. Justice Breyer is frustrated. Breyer says that we should be able to take into account the amount of infected.
Osete talks about lawful exercises of authority — CMS cannot do this lawfully.

"Your Honor, in this case it's going to devastate local economies. It's going to decimate these local towns that don't draw their pool of applicants from the coast, Your Honor. These are local communities. They run these hospitals."

3:10:00 — Justice Kagan talks about labor shortages, asking if Osete is overplaying that issue or is Prelogar is understating them. She admits sarcastically to not knowing about the "rural market".
Osete explains that the Secretary did not consider population balances of rural and city.
3:14:00 — Sotomayor suggests that under the spending clause, the federal government is the buyer and can dictate what it wants to buy.
Osete brings up the condition of participation.
Sotomayor suggests that health and safety has been given to the Commission(er).
3:17:00 — Kavanaugh asks about administrative law and regulation.
Osete talks about the one-size-fits-all writing of CMS irreparably harms smaller communities.
Osete responds to another question regarding the permanence of vaccination versus the temporary wearing of masks.

3:20:00 — Ms. Murrill makes her opening statements
Justice Thomas asks how the CMS mandate preempts the rules in the affected states.
Murrill says that it's different laws in different states.
Murrill mentions the "express consultation requirements built into the statute" which were ignored via the mandate.
3:23:00 — Chief Justice Roberts asks, "General, do you agree with the district court's statement that COVID -- this is a quote -- "COVID no longer poses the dire emergency it once did"?"
Chief Justice Roberts asks about the spending clause.
Murrill talks about the state's police power being abused here.
She explains that there is no precedent by the Secretary's own admission.
3:28:00 — Justice Alito again asks about parens patriae standing and the spending clause.
Murrill explains that this was a work-around by the government's own admission which coerced people via "the fear of job loss."
3:30:00 — Justice Breyer asks about harm to the public and brings up "equity". He again freaks out about rising case numbers.
Murrill explains that with CMS there is no testing option — this is not a choice; they either comply or are fired. They can even comply with all other Medicare statutes and still be fired.
3:34:00 — Sotomayor asks how this mandate is different.
"Power to force the individual to submit to a medical treatment has never ever been something that has been authorized by Congress or done by an agency on an emergency basis"
Sotomayor says that this is "unprecedented" — she is in the signal; that is a key vocabulary term of the signal.

3:28:30 — Fletcher gives closing arguments.
He says vaccination is common and the best way to protect and meet best practices.
He talks about CMS' plan to force compliance over 90 days with a series of social pressures and threats of firing that will lean on individual hospitals before the government steps in where needed.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon Jan 10 07:13:06
[Habebe]: "Anyone catch sotomayers covid claims?"

Yeah, that was hilarious. She believes that shit too. She needs to stay away from CNN psy-ops.

Not to mention that Kagan is a fucking loon, and Breyer is a power-hungry crazy person. Breyer's strategy was, "[Yeah, but if we don't just expand state powers, are you okay with people dying?]", and Kagan's strategy was, "[OMG! The world is on fire!! We have to give daddy government all the powers to fix it!!]"

Thank fuck RBG died.
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jan 13 19:13:35
Big updates:

As was expected from the oral argument questions asked by the Justices, the Supreme Court has allowed the CMS mandate to go into effect while blocking the OSHA mandate due to OSHA and the White House overstepping their authority (OSHA would need an act of Congress).

The opinions can be read here:
[Supreme Court (dot gov); January 13th, 2022; dockets
21A244 "NFIB v. OSHA" and
21A240 "Biden v. Missouri")
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/21

NFIB v. OSHA
Opinions blocking the mandate: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, (w/Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts?)
Opinions dissenting: Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Biden v. Missouri - (CMS Mandate)
Opinions allowing the mandate: Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, Kavanaugh
Opinions dissenting: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett


CNN calls the OSHA dissent from the misinformation-spreading authoritarians Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan "blistering", but I'd call it "psychotic". If you want to know the direction that the DNC desires for its uni-party fascist/totalitarianism, just read their dissenting opinions.

Looks like the flip for CMS was via Roberts and Kavanaugh. That makes sense. Chief Justice Roberts' CMS questions where somewhat middling. Kavanaugh was something of a surprise, though, since he seemed critical of CMS and seemed to realize it was using its administrative powers in bad faith. Good to see that Barrett saw through this *and* dissented. Maybe Kavanaugh wanted street cred as an independent judge. I'm sure the DNC will suddenly love him for throwing them this win.

..
..
And another update for the contractor mandate:
The Eleventh/11th Circuit is freezing the mandate until at least February 22nd, when oral arguments are heard.

This means that businesses relying on the OSHA and/or the contractor/sub-contractor mandate(s) for enforcement must implement private policies if they wish to keep their deadlines, which means a separate legal framework and potentially better rights for workers (because the federal government has lost its control of a large sector of businesses, worker-selection may again dictate which businesses have acceptable policies). This is, of course, doable legally for businesses, but as I mentioned before, one reason that businesses were glomming onto the federal mandates was that they would have additional legal protections which basically removed all private liability (workers would have to seek protections from their own health insurance). Private mandates are totally fine, but they rely on the contracts of those private businesses, so liability returns to those businesses (e.g., those businesses may face class-action lawsuits if side effects from vaccination are discovered). Many businesses may opt to keep the January 18th deadline in place while transferring to a private policy, but overall, this keeps the federal government mostly out of the situation.

As for CMS, that is unfortunate though not unexpected. This gives the DNC-totalitarianism a foot-in-door for more control of health care. They can basically control a huge sector of the health care market via the CMS Secretary's administrative powers. Businesses that have accepted those federal dollars now face harsh realities: small health care providers may collapse, boosting market share of corporate-DNC's entities. This consolidates the U.S. into the Idiocracy "Costco" model of a mega-corporation holding power.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share