Biden Adviser Says President "Will Run Over" GOP Governors Who Resist Vaccine Mandate

[jg121783 3,917]

I don't see how he is going to "run over" anyone when he can't even give a coherent speech or wipe his own behind. I see the opposite happening. There is no way this type of order is legal or constitutional and that is likely the way the courts will see it. Biden over played his hand here. The last attempt to use this type of emergency regulation through OSHA failed when the courts scrutinized it. This will be no different.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/not-now-not-ever-rnc-sue-biden-over-vaccine-mandate-gop-governors-go-ballistic

[TBoneTX 45,524]

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/09/11/here-are-some-possible-avenues-for-legal-challenges-to-bidens-vaccine-mandate-n1477832

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

I'm sure a loyal Biden supporter will be along shortly to explain to us how well he is doing for America. 

 

Any

Moment

Now...

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

6 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

I'm sure a loyal Biden supporter will be along shortly to explain to us how well he is doing for America. 

 

Any

Moment

Now...

[Dashinka 24,593]

I still wonder, when was the last time OSHA proposed a rule for companies with a demarcated number of employees.  Can companies with less than 100 employees ignore current OSHA rules?  As to Biden, he was just expressing his inner Izzy Mendelbaum.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

 

What that nifty article (and the links therein) about past challenges to OSHA emergency rules glosses over is that these are HIGHLY fact-based decisions. In the 1984 ruling, relating to asbestos and mesothelioma, the decision partially hinged on the "emergency" aspect. OSHA had known of the extent and severity of the "emergency" for several years, and the court said no. If you've known for that long, you should have done this sooner if you were going to enforce an emergency order. That's not what we have here. We have a public health emergency and a vaccination that has been available to the general population of adults for less than six months. Further, the risk isn't just limited to one sliver of the population, like asbestos workers and their on the job exposure to asbestos.

 

Percentages are fun, but they're not determinative or even an indication of how this will end up. Take it from someone who took, uh, one term of Administrative Law that Biden has the authority to instruct OSHA to implement this emergency rule. Now of course this rests on judges interpreting the law in line with past precedent and well, that's up in the air with a slate of newly-appointed Trump judges. But looking at a line of industrial hazard cases and saying yep, that's what's gonna happen is blowing smoke up the kiesters of people who want to believe this will fail, liberty will prevail, and there will be an insulated MAGA beer coozie in every mailbox. What is more likely to happen is that multiple cases will be filed in multiple districts, and we'll get conflicting rulings, then hey presto! SCOTUS! And then who knows. That's a black box to some extent, but in general the courts (including SCOTUS) give great deference to the agencies' rulemaking decisions under the AIA.

 

Of note is this quotation from the 1984 case that's being mentioned everywhere: “'The protection afforded to workers should outweigh the economic consequences to the regulated industry.'” Asbestos Information ###'n v. O.S.H.A, 727 F.2d 415, 423 (5th Cir. 1984), citing American Petroleum Institute v. OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1978). What are the economic consequences to the regulated industries? Arguably some workers will quit and new ones will need to be hired, but in all likelihood most will roll up their sleeves. The protection afforded to workers of course is determined by whether or not you live on Earth One, where the vaccines are a highly effective prophylactic against catching the virus, and even more effective against serious illness, hospitalization and death relating to COVID. Most judges do live on Earth One (sometimes it doesn't feel that way) so the balance is likely to tip in favor of the Biden Administration.

[Dashinka 24,593]

17 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

 

What that nifty article (and the links therein) about past challenges to OSHA emergency rules glosses over is that these are HIGHLY fact-based decisions. In the 1984 ruling, relating to asbestos and mesothelioma, the decision partially hinged on the "emergency" aspect. OSHA had known of the extent and severity of the "emergency" for several years, and the court said no. If you've known for that long, you should have done this sooner if you were going to enforce an emergency order. That's not what we have here. We have a public health emergency and a vaccination that has been available to the general population of adults for less than six months. Further, the risk isn't just limited to one sliver of the population, like asbestos workers and their on the job exposure to asbestos.

 

Percentages are fun, but they're not determinative or even an indication of how this will end up. Take it from someone who took, uh, one term of Administrative Law that Biden has the authority to instruct OSHA to implement this emergency rule. Now of course this rests on judges interpreting the law in line with past precedent and well, that's up in the air with a slate of newly-appointed Trump judges. But looking at a line of industrial hazard cases and saying yep, that's what's gonna happen is blowing smoke up the kiesters of people who want to believe this will fail, liberty will prevail, and there will be an insulated MAGA beer coozie in every mailbox. What is more likely to happen is that multiple cases will be filed in multiple districts, and we'll get conflicting rulings, then hey presto! SCOTUS! And then who knows. That's a black box to some extent, but in general the courts (including SCOTUS) give great deference to the agencies' rulemaking decisions under the AIA.

 

Of note is this quotation from the 1984 case that's being mentioned everywhere: “'The protection afforded to workers should outweigh the economic consequences to the regulated industry.'” Asbestos Information ###'n v. O.S.H.A, 727 F.2d 415, 423 (5th Cir. 1984), citing American Petroleum Institute v. OSHA, 581 F.2d 493, 502-03 (5th Cir. 1978). What are the economic consequences to the regulated industries? Arguably some workers will quit and new ones will need to be hired, but in all likelihood most will roll up their sleeves. The protection afforded to workers of course is determined by whether or not you live on Earth One, where the vaccines are a highly effective prophylactic against catching the virus, and even more effective against serious illness, hospitalization and death relating to COVID. Most judges do live on Earth One (sometimes it doesn't feel that way) so the balance is likely to tip in favor of the Biden Administration.

You are probably right, but I do question how it could only be an emergency rule for businesses with more than 100 employees.  That seems to be a little targeted for what is being termed a health emergency for the workers, I guess it is just for some workers.  It will most likely end up at SCOTUS, and if they rule against Izzy Mendelbaum, the calls for Court reform will be amplified.

[TBoneTX 45,524]

And does it count when businesses hire illegal Central Americans or newly imported Afghans who are apparently exempt from all vaccination mandates?

[TBoneTX 45,524]

Regarding the above point, plus others:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/in_spirit_trump_is_still_president.html

[TBoneTX 45,524]

This is a nice one:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/did_we_just_hear_bidens_malaise_speech.html

Do you think that this was Bidementia's malaise speech?

[TBoneTX 45,524]

Three in a row!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/09/joe_bidens_mandate_has_nothing_to_do_with_actual_vaccines.html

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Biden has the authority to instruct OSHA to implement this emergency rule.

If Biden's brains were dynamite, he wouldn't have enough to blow his nose.  

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

3 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

The protection afforded to workers of course is determined by whether or not you live on Earth One, where the vaccines are a highly effective prophylactic against catching the virus, and even more effective against serious illness, hospitalization and death relating to COVID. 

Were you able to type that with a straight face?   Anecdotally (all I have to accurately judge by, obviously), I know more who have died from the vaccine than from dovid itself.  

And while we're at it... those bigly "covid death" numbers?  Yeah, they aren't.  

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

On 9/13/2021 at 3:47 PM, Dashinka said:

You are probably right, but I do question how it could only be an emergency rule for businesses with more than 100 employees.  That seems to be a little targeted for what is being termed a health emergency for the workers, I guess it is just for some workers.  It will most likely end up at SCOTUS, and if they rule against Izzy Mendelbaum, the calls for Court reform will be amplified.

It's an artificial cutoff, to some extent, but then these sort of rules are limited to certain classes of employers frequently enough. Smaller employers are usually given more leeway, whether or not we agree with the rationale to do so. I recall my professor mentioning something about the unfeasibility of enforcement. 

On 9/13/2021 at 7:26 PM, LIBrty4all said:

Were you able to type that with a straight face?   Anecdotally (all I have to accurately judge by, obviously), I know more who have died from the vaccine than from dovid itself.  

And while we're at it... those bigly "covid death" numbers?  Yeah, they aren't.  

Yes, I did type it with a straight face. If you have anecdotal evidence of many people in your acquaintanceship dying from vaccination, I suggest you notify your local health authority. I'm certain they would be very interested.

 

Do share your sourcing for why we should not trust the death count from COVID in this country. I am not certain the count is correct either, but I suspect we are working from different directions on this number. 

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

8 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Do share your sourcing for why we should not trust the death count from COVID in this country. I am not certain the count is correct either, but I suspect we are working from different directions on this number. 

Well, let's start with the monetization of dealing with covid patients.  Then mix in a little spice of "if someone has covid-like symptoms, even if they haven't tested positive", they can be listed as a covid patient.  Now, just add in the fact that flu deaths have dropped from 50-60,000 (USA numbers) annually down to less than 700... guess what those deaths were labeled as?  You guessed it... COVID!!

 

The numerator in the ratios has been highly inflated, at least in the US, ever since this mess started.  Sadly, we will never really know the true death toll.