The Supreme Court can't get its story straight on vaccines

[TomCADem]

This is what happens when you select inexperienced partisan hacks to the Supreme Court. For example, Amy Barratt had only three years of experience practicing law, plus two years as a judicial clerk. The rest was in academia, before she was appointed to the Court of Appeal, then the Supreme Court. It is almost as if conservatives want to get folks who have no real world experience who might recognize that right wing talking points don't really translate to the real world as workable policy.

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

On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of unsigned opinions that appear to be at war with each other.

The first, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, blocks a Biden administration rule requiring most workers to either get vaccinated against Covid-19 or to routinely be tested for the disease. The second, Biden v. Missouri, backs a more modest policy requiring most health care workers to get the vaccine.

There are some things that differentiate the two cases. Beyond the fact that the first rule is broader than the second, the broader rule also relies on a rarely used provision of federal law that is restricted to emergencies, while the latter rule relies on a more general statute.

But the Court gives little attention to substantive differences between the laws authorizing both rules. Instead, it applies an entirely judicially created doctrine and other standards in inconsistent ways. The result is two opinions that are difficult to reconcile with each other.

[orwell]

1. This gets to the heart...

...of the rot in the judicial system that is painfully obvious.

In many cases, law is not applied but rather a predetermined opinion is molded with rhetoric to reach a predetermined outcome.

How else would anyone be able to stack the court. Stacking implies that you know how someone is likely to rule regardless of the facts of the case or legal precedent.

That is why this genuflection before the "Supreme Court" and the "rule of law" is laughable. Bush v Gore should have decisively put an end to that myth.

So much for "blind justice."

[dem4decades]

2. Doesn't matter, what they say goes. And they say this country goes down

The shitter.

[The Magistrate]

3. They Have Their Story Quite Straight, Sir

They wish to dismantle the Federal government's capacity to regulate businesses and polluters and bigots.

To this end they intend to restrict the ability of Congress to delegate the details of how laws are implemented, and move on to overturning the New Deal era decisions that greatly extended the reach of the Commerce Clause, on which the very existence of most Federal regulations rest.

Without for a moment minimizing the great harm they will do concerning women's right and more, these are not the greatest concern of the corrupt 'justices' and the plutocrats who placed them on the bench. These would be perfectly happy with abortion being a perpetual right, and gay marriage as well, providing the two goals above were achieved.

[WHITT]

4. The Gang Of Six

claimed OSHA, which Congress gave the power to protect the workplace from grave dangers, couldn't implement a vaccine mandate/test protocol because the virus is not limited to the workplace, but is also everywhere else in society.

Except numerous times in the past, OSHA implemented a mandated safe and clean drinking water standard in workplaces, which is also everywhere else in society.

The Gang of Six are uninformed idiots, forcing their warped ideological agenda down the throats of the American people, nevermind how dangerously wrong and unscientific the basis.

[Claustrum]

5. They aren't uninformed. They just use whatever narrative that best suits them much like republicans

and Trump. There is no consistency with what they say or do. It changes based on their preferred outcome. They will say what sounds best for that situation/outcome they want even when they contradict themselves in the very next sentence. Trump did it many many times within his speeches back in 2015 and 2016.

[WHITT]

7. Agree Completely

But in addition to that, you also have a bunch of uninformed/ill-informed RightWingers on the court. Gorsuch claiming "hundreds of thousands" die from the flu, which he likely heard on fox, and then lying that he actually said "hundreds, thousands", which is also wildly wrong anyway.

Add that to all the stupid, false bullshit that Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas have said.

Dumbasses.

[gratuitous]

6. They decide what result pleases them

Then reverse engineer it to tailor a "legal" justification for their hare-brained interpretation of black-letter law.