A federal judge blocks Biden's vaccine mandate for U.S. health workers.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: New York Times

A federal judge blocks Biden's vaccine mandate for U.S. health workers.

By Azi Paybarah and Reed Abelson
Nov. 30, 2021 Updated 8:53 p.m. ET

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday to halt the start of President Biden's national vaccine mandate for health care workers, which had been set to begin next week.

The injunction, written by Judge Terry A. Doughty, effectively expanded a separate order issued on Monday by a federal court in Missouri. The earlier one had applied only to 10 states that joined in a lawsuit against the president's decision to require all health workers in hospitals and nursing homes to receive at least their first shot by Dec. 6 and to be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4.

"There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million health care workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," Judge Doughty of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana wrote. He added: "It is not clear that even an act of Congress mandating a vaccine would be constitutional."

The plaintiffs, he added, also have an "interest in protecting its citizens from being required to submit to vaccinations" and to prevent the loss of jobs and tax revenue that may result from the mandate.

{snip}

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/world/vaccine-mandate-health-workers-blocked.html

---

Hat tip, a RW Twitter account

Didn't this happen a few days ago?

No, that was only for ten states. This is nationwide

Federal judge blocks Biden administration's vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in 10 states

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142832827

-- -- -- -- -- --

More dramatic:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-judge-blocks-biden-vaccine-mandate-for-health-care-workers-nationwide

HEALTH Published 3 hours ago

Federal judge blocks Biden vaccine mandate for health care workers nationwide

The judge said 'indefinite states of emergency' pose 'grave risks' to civil liberties

By Jon Brown Fox News

A federal judge in Louisiana issued a nationwide preliminary injunction Tuesday against President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers.

Judge Terry A. Doughty in the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana ruled in favor of a request from Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry to block an emergency regulation issued Nov. 4 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that required vaccines for nearly every full-time employee, part-time employee, volunteer, and contractor working at a wide range of healthcare facilities receiving Medicaid or Medicaid funding.

Louisiana was joined in the lawsuit by attorneys general in 13 other states.

{snip}

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Trump judge, should be removed from the bench today.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. On what grounds?

"My feelings are hurt" is not sufficient.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Nice insult with the feelings hurt bullshit

goodbye

[kelly1mm]

11. On what grounds? NT

[Polybius]

13. No he shouldn't

Not only are there no grounds to do it, but it sets and extremely dangerous precedent.

[ananda]

21. Agree

These rw judges are a danger to society!

[OAITW r.2.0]

4. Take it to the next level. Biden can do this.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I thought the same when I saw the NYT breaking banner

and also realized this order was probably from a different district. I suppose a couple "liberal" courts could rule the opposite, making the whole thing ripe for SCOTUS review, which is obviously where this is going. They are going to have to decide what "health" and "safety" means and trying to protect that.

And the thing about "indefinite states of emergency" is a lot of B.S. Usually a SOE is dictated by some fixed time frame where it needs to go through a renewal process - notably at the state levels. At the federal level, there are some that are still in effect from decades ago - like the "National Emergency" where sanctions were put into effect gainst Iran in 1979 through Carter's E.O. (PDF), but where none of the complainers are about to agree to get rid of any time soon - https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/12170.pdf

These people are demons in a pit trying to drag as many people as they can down there with them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Different court

All the assholes who said there's no difference between Hillary and Trump have some splaining to do.

[Roy Rolling]

19. Western Louisiana court

As far away from us in New Orleans without being in Texas.

Makes sense.

[BlueIdaho]

7. So a single solitary judge

Thinks his opinion overrides the President’s emergency order? Time for a serious reorganization of the courts.

[kelly1mm]

12. Yes. See Marbury v. Madison.

[Orrex]

20. What about Jacobson v Massachusetts?

I confess that I'm not conversant with the myriad ways that Republicans seem freely able to block and overturn progressive policies no matter how urgently needed, but I had the impression that Jacobson v Mass was fairly robust?

[kelly1mm]

24. Jacobson v Mass involved a state law, passed by the MA legislature and signed into

law by the executive. In the US, the federal government is one of enumerated powers and it is questionable if the federal government has 'general police powers' like the states do. This is why many in the government (including President Biden and Speaker Pelosi) previously stated there could be no federal vaccine mandate. Further, the courts in reviewing these proposed EO/OSHA mandates have honed in on the lack of statutory authority granted to the executive branch to issue vaccine mandates. Basically the courts are saying you (the federal government) may not even have the power to do this but certainly not without congressional action.

[Orrex]

25. Thanks for that analysis

Not what I was hoping to hear, but it is what it is.

It's astonishing to me that there's no provision in place authorizing federal action in the face of a lethal pandemic, especially when it's clear that Republicans are fully committed to blocking any efforts at public safety enacted by Biden or Democrats in general.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

27. OSHA says, we can do this, because...

Full disclosure: I am not an attorney working in the Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor. I am not an attorney at all. I am merely linking to OSHA's arguments for why they can do this.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard
A Rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on 11/05/2021

Scroll down to

Table of Contents

II. Pertinent Legal Authority

The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To this end, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards under sections 6(b) and (c) of the OSH Act.[1] 29 U.S.C. 655(b). These provisions provide bases for issuing occupational safety and health standards under the Act. Once OSHA has established as a threshold matter that a health standard is necessary under section 6(b) or (c)— i.e., to reduce a significant risk of material health impairment, or a grave danger to employee health—the Act gives the Secretary “almost unlimited discretion to devise means to achieve the congressionally mandated goal” of protecting employee health, subject to the constraints of feasibility. See United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1981). A standard's individual requirements need only be “reasonably related” to the purpose of ensuring a safe and healthful working environment. Id. at 1237, 1241; see also Forging Indus. Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985). OSHA's authority to regulate employers is hedged by constitutional considerations and, pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, the regulations and enforcement policies of other federal agencies. See, e.g., Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 241 (2002).

{snip}

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-23643/p-71

HTH. Thanks for writing. I appreciate your remarks.

[kelly1mm]

29. Thanks for linking to OSHA's argument. So far

The Courts are not buying it. That is why there are now nationwide stays on the OSHA proposed rules and the CMMS (health care) rules. Both President Biden and Speaker Pelosi previously stating the federal government could not mandate vaccines has been used against the governments position in both these cases.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Related, kinda, sorta

This is about the emergency temporary standard. You now have more time to throw in your two cents. Or rubles.

.
@OSHA_DOL
has extended the comment period for the COVID-19 vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard to Jan. 19, 2022. Learn more:

Link to tweet

[Lucky Luciano]

9. Another pro-virus idiot.

[orleans]

10. who wants to go to their unvaxed doctor?

who wants to be in the hospital when you're sick and resistance is low and be in a ward with a bunch of unvaccinated nurses and techs?

who trusts the judgement of these unvaxed medical people?

raise your hands

[ananda]

22. Or an er or clinic where some are vaxed and some not.

This ruling is just insane.

[Socal31]

23. Follow the science.

There is a legitimate reason that a frontline medical practitioner would not need any *additional* immunity.

Not sure why we dug in on the side that ignores natural immunity.

[Mysterian]

30. What science?

Linkies?

[Hav]

31. This is dangerous nonsense

The immunity may be good if you survive Covid but the vaccine won't prevent your body to develop additional methods to fight Covid once you get infected. The idea that you don't need the vaccine because some studies suggest that the immunity for some is (temporarily) very good after they got Covid is so dangerous. The vaccine doesn't only give you a better chance to survive Covid, the protection you have after getting Covid won't be worse.

And btw, so many healthcare workers died and so many in nursing homes got infected by the people who were supposed to take care of them. That is a legitimate reason for healthcare workers to get the vaccine. No one ignores natural immunity, that is an anti-vaxxer talking point.

[Bayard]

14. Sheer idiocy

More counties are mandating vaccinations all the time. For instance:

** ITALY made COVID-19 health passes mandatory for all workers in October. Workers unable to show proof of vaccination, a negative test or recent recovery from infection would be suspended without pay and face a fine if they try to keep working.

Others that don't appear to have a problem with, "posing 'grave risks' to civil liberties".......

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/countries-making-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-08-16/

[JohnSJ]

15. Regardless of what this judge says, my rights as a patient are entitled NOT to be attended by

someone who has not been vaccinated

[Historic NY]

16. Find a better judge, or SCOTUS

use the Quarantine Acts, and the early 18th century mandates.

[Jakes Progress]

17. What a doofus. We mandate vaccinations all the time.

Is this idiot saying that soldiers don't have to be vaccinated? That we can't require vaccinations for students any more?

This is a truly stupid judge.

[RobinA]

26. It Doesn't Say

that vaccinations can't be mandated, it says that the president cannot mandate. The law is generally not about the end result, it's about the process. If vaccinations are to be mandated, this was the wrong way to go about it. Sez the law. According to this judge.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

28. Thanks. I've just posted a link to OSHA's arguments, in

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142833624#post27

Thanks again for writing.

[Jakes Progress]

32. Bullshit. The accurate line is "According to this judge".

Wanna bet that if tfg had ordered vaccines, this judge would have ruled exactly the opposite. There is no law that says a president can't order vaccinations.

Assholes just found an asshole judge who would crawl out of trump's ass long enough to rule that people should die because that will piss off liberals.

This has nothing to do with law, or precedent, or process. It was blatant political bias from the bench. The law sez no such thing. This judge did. Not the law.

[cstanleytech]

18. Redo it and give them the choice of doing it or losing the federal funding they receive.

After all they are not entitled to that money and if they decide not to take it the money can be sent to places that decide to do it.