Please keep discussion on topic and civil. If you want to discuss off-topic politics, there are plenty of other subs. This is a sub focused on COVID-19.


Even the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers taking federal money only survived 5-4. It's probably not possible to have a meaningful discussion of the root issues here under the rules of r/coronavirus


Wait until you see the /r/news discussion of this decision. It's a shit-show all around.


Yeah this whole pandemic shows how split we are. If another crisis happens say a major earth quake or something of that nature I feel we wouldn’t be able to effectively handle it as a nation.


Sadly, this also proves many Zombie Apocalypse movies/tv shows horrifyingly accurate on how the average person would react. Just be thankful Covid doesn’t reanimate the dead …yet…


Accurate? The idiots in those films are leagues above what I've witnessed. Imagine hearing "You folks are just hyping these zombies up because you don't want to work" in one of those films.


So called dystopian movies usually present scenarios were at least one element is way better than our current reality People love to talk about Idiocracy and how were almost there and whatnot, but always remember the society in that movie unanimously voted the smartest man on earth for president at the end, nobody thinks we'd do that in real life.


>People love to talk about Idiocracy and how were almost there and whatnot, but always remember the society in that movie unanimously voted the smartest man on earth for president at the end, nobody thinks we'd do that in real life. Well this isnt the thought I needed to go to bed to.


Isn’t this the premise of “don’t look up”


Good leadership isn't necessarily about being smart. It takes the ability to know your own strength and weaknesses, and allow others to make up for where you fall short. I'd say President Comancho was one of the best presidents they could of elected. He knew his short comings and hired who he perceived as the only person capable of fixing vital issues. Being smart doesn't necessarily mean great leader, it takes a strong moral compass to do the right thing and self introspection. If the smartest man alive is a narcissistic buffoon and you give him power, you're gonna have a bad time.


"I trust my immune system!" Proceeds to open the main gate and let all the zombies in.


The same way Covid infected people might say, "It's just allergies!" you'd have the same people in the zombie apocalypse saying, "It's just a scratch!" while hiding a bite.


Yeah I've been telling people that before this pandemic if somebody made characters in a movie act the way some people act about covid, everyone would say it was unrealistic. People would've always liked to pretend the whole world would work together against a worldwide danger but reality has disappointed us.


which is why Don't Look Up is the most realistic doomsday film ever.


Assuming zombies feed on brains, like the O’Bannon zombies from the ‘Return’ series, they’ll surely starve in this Covid pandemic situation, as most anti vax idiots brains have atrophied past the point of any nutritional value.


Imagine households in England refusing to turn their lights off at night during WWII because they think the bombings are hoax.


Republicans have said the exact same thing when minimum wage workers refused to go back to work and risk their (and their families) health for shit pay. So it is VERY accurate.


> Covid doesn’t reanimate the dead …yet… we're only 13 days into 2022 and you just jinxed us...


Hey look at that, Cordycep fungal spores are starting to evolve to take over more complex biological life forms like they do insects.




That's going on my bingo card! !RemindMe 350 days


I will be messaging you in 11 months on [**2022-12-30 04:04:25 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2022-12-30%2004:04:25%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/s37kab/supreme_court_blocks_biden_vaccine_mandate_for/hsl2fh4/?context=3) [**2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCoronavirus%2Fcomments%2Fs37kab%2Fsupreme_court_blocks_biden_vaccine_mandate_for%2Fhsl2fh4%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202022-12-30%2004%3A04%3A25%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20s37kab) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|


I wouldn’t worry, if Covid is going to go SuperMutation in ‘22, it’ll most likely take the form of the “sick” from the ‘Sweet Tooth’ comic/Netflix series and cause babies to be born as human/animal hybrids, due to its ability to infect non-human mammals like deer and felines…


No. If anything, a zombie apocalypse won't be accurate now unless half of the people deny there are zombies and walk straight into an undead horde to own the zombie alarmists.


This is why we’re fucked with climate change. It’s like barreling down the Autobahn with no brakes.


And you have breaks available but everyone in the car thinks it would be too much of a hassle to use them


And they purposefully cut the brakes to “own” you, even if they must die as well.


**WILDCARD BABY, WOOOOOOOOO** *jumps out back of moving van*


More like they cut the brake lines to prove that they don’t work…


Begging the EMTs after the accident to reinstall the break lines. EMTs: That's not how this works.


Using brakes is just a scam originated by Big Autopart™ and the gub'mint to line their pockets and take it freedoms.




This but like a road runner cartoon where the road's about to end, and we're convinced as long as we don't look down we won't fall.


It's ok, Kevin Costner will deliver you to dryland should your city go under.


I don't even want to imagine what would happen if we had a pandemic on the level of the movie _Contagion_. It'd be bad. Very bad.


It would actually be easier to get people on board with basic safety measures, because it would be obviously deadly. Or maybe it just means everyone stubborn and nonsensical would quickly die, hmm....


Because 800,000 dead Americans wasn't *convincing* enough?


It is too long of a delay from infection to death with only superficially mild symptoms at the beginning, like shortness of breath while being already highly infectious. Then the people get taken to the hospital were they die unseen from the public. Dumb people can‘t handle the abstractness of it all. If the infected are just a number it’s easier to ignore it and propagandists on facebook/reddit/fox news also have it much easer to convince people. If Covid made people die on the street in masses it would‘ve been stopped in Wuhan and never become a pandemic. Covid is so deadly because it‘s not that deadly.


You act like our civilization as we knew it is going to make it out of this pandemic. Wearing a mask in public and not spitting on people is too much to ask


We already saw it with Hurricane Sandy. Southern states vote against aid to the mid-Atlantic and turn around to demand aid after Harvey. We saw it in the 2017-2021 term when western wildfires and covid were hitting "blue" and were actively downplayed or dismissed until it was too late to prevent it happening to "red". It's not *what's going to happen in another* crisis, it's just the next one in a line.




You joke now but we had an earthquake last year and an anti-vaxxer I know legit posted that it was a simulation from the government for FEMA to practice emergency earthquake drills..


There are people who think that all earthquakes are artificial. I wish I was joking...


I wouldn't call it a split, that implies both paths have equal footing. There's on the right path, and totally off the fucking rails.


It says a lot about the infrastructure set up over the years by the government that natural disaster relief is still working fairly well.


They locked their thread, of course.


Whatever side of the aisle you're on, this ruling is a win for coronavirus


*Omicron liked that*


Delta entered the chat


and r/politics is locking related posts


Because they has a mega thread. They try to isolate breaking news to one thread to avoid flooding the forum.


r/law has insights


Yeah. I get why speech forums like this one have moderation and limitation of scope but it does imply some situations that cannot be addressed in that scope. I am not sure this can really be addressed in the formal legal scope of the Court either. It's about the burden the unvaccinated currently place on the vaccinated, financially and medically. The unvaccinated have not and are unlikely in future to accept the burden of paying for the mistakes of others. A legal ruling cannot make them accept it, either.


> cannot be addressed in that scope. In *any* "scope of consequence" (reddits that have more than a handful of subscribers). It's almost like they don't want us talking about it. Weird, huh?


Even this post was difficult to find. I figured this would be at the top of Reddit right now. I guess I’m not surprised that it’s this way


United Airlines has had no employee deaths from covid since requiring vaccination. A recent study indicates that vaccinations saved over 250,000 lives. This ruling ignores the mountain of evidence that vaccinations work, reducing death, absenteeism and other losses.


I agree with you but the SC is not judging the effectiveness of vaccines they are judging whether mandating on private business by a government agency and not an act of Congress is constitutional. It is not their job to tailor decisions to circumstances but to the rule of law. I can fully understand not liking the decision but the decision is not a commentary on vaccine effectiveness.


That would carry a lot more weight If the supreme court didn’t split on political lines as usual.


Plus the reasoning was that it wasn't an occupational hazard so doesn't fall under OSHA. As an essential worker who feared for my life every day for over a year and a half, what do you *mean* it's not an occupational hazard? The only people I know but one who got sick were frontline workers!


The vaccine effectiveness was brought up repeatedly in the healthcare worker mandate decision. So apparently they are judging it.


Federal govt. has specific regulatory authority over healthcare workers via the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. OSHA authority isn’t as broad. Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hear appeals of state vaccine mandates, so they seem to have made their opinion clear that this is a state law issue except where the federal government has specific authority. I don’t think you can say this was a referendum on vaccine effectiveness in either case.


As a former lawyer, I deeply appreciate your sentiment, but if you think this decision was based in law and adjudicated by impartial justices, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.


Thank you for this


My Fortune-listed employer has required vaccination of all corporate employees since I think November. There was a process to ask for medical or religious exemption but I doubt they granted any/many. I know of two people who were going to leave. I believe one did, the other was going to retire but sadly, his wife died of COVID and he wound up not retiring. The every-other-year worldwide convention is still on for early April (it was cancelled in 2020) and they are requiring all attendees be vaccinated with a WHO-approved vaccine, no exemptions, including the under-5 crowd. No medical or religious exemptions.


You can't. They'll lock topics early too. Such bullshit. "No politics." means one side gets to bash coronavirus vaccines and masks as a platform and the other side can't be critical of it.


This was not a surprising ruling at all.


The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of several State government vaccine mandates. Today's ruling just says that Biden does not have vaccine mandate authority via OSHA until Congress gives it to him. I wonder if Biden can find mandate authority without going through OSHA.


The Supreme Court would knock that down too - same principle.


The Supreme Court isn't necessarily against vaccine mandates. They are against trying to do a backdoor vaccine mandate with an executive order and OSHA. Vaccine mandates implemented by state legislatures have a much better chance of getting through. They said if congress passed a law to give OSHA the power to create vaccine mandates if would be alright.


They also said if OSHA tried something more specific, like targeted mandates at workplaces which as especially vulnerable, that would work too. Whole situation isn’t helped by the White House chief of staff very specifically tweeting that this OSHA thing was just an executive workaround (a tweet which got a direct mention in the scotus ruling)


I just don't understand how Osha has the authority to require helmets and goggles, but not face masks. Both are for public safety but only one is in their power.


OSHA does require face masks when reasonably necessary, like in the medical theater or dealing with hazardous material. OSHA deals in what equipment is reasonable to ensure safety of the worker, which is dependent upon the job being done, a construction worker has different PPE from a nurse at a hospital which is different from a restaurant server.


And PPE decisions require a hazard assessment to go along with it. OSHA doesn't require task PPE, it requires PPE when a hazard is present. If the ETS had gone that route I think it would have been well within the bounds of their authority and would have just codified interpretations they're using for general duty citations right now.


Is the court saying congress has to give him the authority by passing a law?


Yes. They are specifically just knocking down this rule because the conservative bloc doesn’t believe the OSHA law was intended to give this power.


Or they have to give OSHA the power specifically. They're saying it isn't reasonable to assume that the congress of the 1970's gave OSHA this power, and that a mandate like this is something that has to come from the legislature. Otherwise it's an end-run around how the government would normally handle something like this. State-level mandates, for example, have gone through without any problem at all. Biden's chief of staff basically acknowledged publicly that this was a work-around, which was monumentally stupid and specifically came up during the SC arguments. ETA: This is the text of the tweet I'm referring to: > “OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2022/01/08/how-a-white-house-tweet-may-doom-bidens-workplace-vaccine-mandate/?sh=1734c97f5e5d




At this point, a peacetime draft would do the trick. Report, get your shots, discharge. Then, make people happy by letting them know they can now sign up for USAA insurance ;)


Is USAA pretty good insurance?


Not a clue lol


Gronk would finally be happy


Links to the state rulings?




SCOTUS is just trying to kill chevron deference. This isn’t really about the mandate, and they said as much in the ruling. They would rather a hundred thousand people die than give up a chance to change stare decisis.


Dummy here. What?


The way things have worked in the US for a while is that instead of Congress passing laws about the nitty gritty details of various issues, it has created federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, FAA, etc., which then create rules and policies that companies must follow. This has created what’s known as the “Administrative State” where a lot of what is or is not allowed or considered legal is decided by Federal agencies. Can a company’s production process emit X amount of Y chemicals into the air? That’s up to the EPA to decide. Conservatives on the court think this is unconstitutional. They believe that only Congress can tell companies what they can or cannot do, and Congress cannot delegate this authority to a federal agency that falls under the executive branch. The believe agencies can only *enforce* the rules that Congress creates, not *decide new rules.* They believe that the way it currently exists, where agencies make *and* enforce the rules is tantamount to allowing cops to write the own laws that they enforce. So it’s not just that OSHA can’t create a vaccine mandate, but a fundamental belief that *no agency* should be allowed to create *any* new rule. Only Congress has the authority to decide what is and is jot legal. Agencies only enforce rules. They do not make them.


I can try to explain what he's talking about. >SCOTUS is just trying to kill chevron deference. Conservatives are generally opposed to what is called "Chevron deference". Chevron deference is the principle that when Congress passes a law and the Executive Branch creates a rule or regulation/policy/etc. about that law, courts should defer to the executive agencies interpretation of the law/regulation. For example, the law that created the EPA is pretty vague, so the EPA had to develop a complex set of rules, policies, and regulations. Chevron deference means the courts defer to how the EPA interprets those policies. Conservatives generally opposed this, because it gives unelected bodies (the executive agencies) wide power to create and enforce items on private and public industry. So specifically many conservative judges are trying to curtail Chevron Deference, and being much stricter on how executive agencies can interpret and enforce laws. >They would rather a hundred thousand people die than give up a chance to change stare decisis. State decisis is the idea of "precedent". You hear this all the time that "precedent" dictates X (for example, Roe v. Wade is routinely pointed to as precedent that abortion is legal in America). The conservative block on the Supreme Court has been signalling the past few years they don't respect precedent as much as previous courts, and seem poised to reinterpret many laws and legal precedents through a Constitutionalist lens. This reinterpretation would generally involve taking power away from the federal government and a few other conservative ideas.


The majority held that it wasn’t necessary to weigh the mandate on its merit, because OSHA had pushed too far in its interpretation of federal law. Chevron deference is the principle that courts should defer to executive agencies in interpreting how they should apply statutory law, as they are the experts in the field. The conservative majority has been indicating for a while that they want to overturn chevron.


Today’s ruling says a lot more than that. Hyperconservative judges have long pushed the “nondelegation” doctrine, a pretense for paralyzing government. “Nondelegation” says that laws cannot address a big issue unless it’s explicitly mentioned in language, even if the big issue fits the law. This might sound reasonable until you see the applications. For example, conservative judges say the “Clean Air Act” is not allowed to address CO2, even though the law speaks in broadest terms of “harmful” air. They admit CO2 is harmful air, but say that laws must explicitly name check global warming to address global warming. The problem? None of our laws do, so agencies can do almost nothing about global warming and cannot regulate factories that emit. Exactly what conservatives want. Remember— judicial supremacy is not in the constitution. The idea that 5 people have final say on what our founding document says is borderline insane.


The law authorizing OSHA 100% gave them the power to do a vaccine mandate applying to workplaces like this law. Finding any other way is naked judicial activism.


I swear to God, if I hear one more person ask, "BuT WhY CaN'T BiDeN Do SoMeTHiNG??? Americans picked the wrong year to learn how their government works.


Literally case in point with the replies. People need to take a civics course FFS or at least Google how these institutions work. We have a President with limited powers not a King. Want to be mad? Get pissed at Congress, most of these things are their job.


I get roasted every time I bring up how Biden isn’t a king in r/politics. We have three branches people.


lol, that place drives me insane sometimes. You’d think for a sub dedicated to US politics most of them would have a decent concept of how things worked.


I'm convinced 20% of Reddit now consists of foreign agents just trying to get us pissed off at each other.


Oh there’s definitely a huge component of that. It’s really bad on local subs around elections. Commenters that have a weird post history or just say super inflammatory statements.


City politics discussions on r/nyc are so bad they make dumpster fires look like Daniella Pineda


Or 90% of reddit is angry 13 yr olds


I have convinced myself that 25%+ of the internet is foreign bots created to destabilize America. It's how I stay sane. "Nope, that's not a real person." "Nope, that comment has 1.8k upvotes on that insane comment solely due to foreign bots"


Well the current level of pissed has killed 800,000 people and counting. It's paying dividends for them so why stop?


Even people who "know" how politics work have a significant amount of trouble internalizing just how much the US government's structure makes doing things difficult. People still believe in the world of West Wing or the mythologized telling of LBJ personally twisting everyone's arms to get everything he wanted. A president cannot give a good speech and overcome a legislative or judicial hurdle. In the modern era I do not believe a speech has ever moved a single legislative vote, for that matter. No matter how much a president does or does not want something cannot summon 60 votes in the senate, or convert a moderate member of their political party into a radical from the far left or far right. It doesn't work. Having the sharpest legal argument around doesn't matter when SCOTUS is now an ideological proving ground that has such a rich history of precedent that basically any decision can be made into the legally correct one. I think at the end of the day people don't accept it because they don't *want* to accept it. It's an ugly reality that forces any change you want to be lots of work over years, maybe decades. People of all political stripes want instant gratification. It's a big part of why the party in power becomes unpopular almost immediately after assuming power.


A lot of these people complaining now barely gave a damn about trying to fix the system because it hardly effected them...or so they thought. It's almost as if certain subsets of liberals learned nothing from 2016.


When the infrastructure bill was being crapped on by Joe Manchin in the Senate, I saw something on twitter that made me laugh. Essentially, what was Biden to do with Manchin? He can't waterboard him to get him to change his vote. At best the President can try to use influence of his office to change minds in Congress, but he's simply not Lyndon Johnson in the 60s.


*can* he waterboard him though? 🤔 Never shut down GITMO, and Biden commands the CIA....


Congress is glad this is how it works. While everyone is focused on the reality tv series "America's next President!", the real lawmakers get to carry on being incumbent cause no one's paying attention.


It's almost like there's a system in place where the branches of our government check or counterbalance one another.


Seems to be part of the problem. Find the easiest branch to hijack, hold the others hostage with it. Will of the people successfully subverted.


Don't even need to hijack a full branch. Or even "hijack" really. Control over the senate can be had with the support of a majority of the populace in states that add up to *17*% of the country's population. That's as designed: no hijacking necessary. With that control, control over the courts can be guaranteed (that's why SCOTUS has the make-up that it does that wrote this decision!). With that control, no legislation will happen that this 17% disapproves of. With that control, no constitutional amendments can ever happen to change the system; actually, for amendment purposes it just requires a majority of the vote in states making up 7% of the population. It only takes a majority of the vote in 12% of the population to have a filibuster sustaining minority. It is unfortunately trivially easy to make the "will of the people" a minor detail depending on the level of power sought by a group.


I've had to explain that to someone and they still said there's no separation of powers. Some people just can't be helped.


What do people think they are actively electing....


Or the constitution that sets checks and balances


Frankly, there is a huge amount of power in the executive branch. But not for the way they did this


IMO the fact that this issue even made it this far is a sign of the executive having too much power. This is an issue for congress, period.




I don't want him to do anything, when it comes to this particular president (or the previous one for that matter), the less they do and interfere, usually the better.


He could sign an executive order to cut people checks who are forced out of work yet again due this pandemic.... Instead we are told to quarantine for 5 days, shut our mouths, and get back to work.


> He could sign an executive order to cut people checks who are forced out of work yet again due this pandemic.... > > Unfortunately I don't think he can. Congress handles the purse.


Why just for the pandemic and not have more employees protections in general?


Haha that pesky constitution.


Honestly, I really appreciate this comment lol.


I am not surprised by the blocking the vaccine mandate but the next ruling is also very telling how much of a joke the Robert’s court is. As far as I am concerned those rulings are 3-3 and 5-1. 3 of the judges are unfit to be on any bench much less the SCOTUS.


Honestly this is what I expected sadly. OSHA doesn’t have the best track record in court for these emergency requirements (mixed results) and the current make up of the Supreme Court definitely doesn’t help. I think many here assumed because state vaccine requirements were protected that a federal one would also succeed. But since the OSHA standard provided a way out (mask up and take a weekly test) I’m still a little surprised myself.




My workplace announced their intent to follow the vaccine mandate and then walked it back pretty quick. Then yesterday they sent out an email asking everyone to pretty please get the vaccine because production is so far behind with so many people being sick. My guess is many businesses wanted to implement a vaccine mandate but only if the federal government could be the fall guy.


My company set up a system to collect proof of vaccination status, announced a deadline to submit today, and reversed within an hour after the ruling was announced. Dragging their feet on mandates so we don't lose all the antivax labor. There are a lot of them.


*”There are a lot of them”* we should talk about this more.


I work HR for a company of 40 people *total* and we had 5 exemption requests. It’s….fucking exhausting. The number of hours we had to spend writing up these policies/forms, then amending them, then amending them again, webinars with lawyers, cataloguing and uploading all of the paperwork…just to walk it back in the end and basically “nvm” the entire damn thing. An unbelievable shit show and even though I know I’m supposed to be impartial, I’ll never see the employees who asked for exemption the same way again. The level of unhinged insanity in their explanations, and the judgmental, holier than thou tone…It really felt like a slap in the face, especially since we’re a small business who drives home the family culture and puts a lot of effort into employee morale. One dude literally signed it “In Christ,”. Incredible.


M*****F****! Did he seriously sign that? I’m a Christian and I’m so ashamed of this BS Edited my original comment to please the bots


Lolol, yes he did! Most ironic thing to me, it’s my parents business (dad and stepmom) and stepmom is quite religious. She embodies the Christian values thing and is extremely sensitive to people’s beliefs. She even called each employee directly and heard them out, made it clear she respects their rights but we have to follow guidelines. Sigh. It’s sad and exhausting dealing with people who are this misguided.


> especially since we’re a small business who drives home the family culture bleh


Scott Gottlieb thinks it made things worse, so not everyone followed this view. It made vaccinations even more political than they already were. (edit: don't kill the messenger with the downvotes, I put in his quote below. :)) Edit: here's his quote on Twitter: Notwithstanding ruling, bottom line is OSHA was doing little to enforce it, and that was unlikely to change. Biden Admin realized how divisive and clunky this became. It was always a bridge too far, more likely to harden opposition to vaccination efforts than ease these divides


Well there's tons of clips of government officials saying they would never mandate it as well which doesn't help optics either so. If anything like someone said above me, vaccinated nurses with covid shut up and get back to work. Unvaxxed without covid good bye.


It's also weird. would OSHA also say all kids at schools have to get the vaccine because schools have more than 100 people there and teachers need to be protected. Also, this didn't really come from OSHA, the Biden Administration told OSHA what to do, so it's not like this was done through a normal process. All in all, a bad look and I agree with Scott Gottlieb that this is an overall negative.


It almost seems like a, "door in the face" technique whereby the administration purposefully threw the OSHA mandate out there so the Supreme Court could knock it down, but compromise by leaving the healthcare worker mandate in place.


Something as broad as this needed to go through Congress. There needs to be limits on governance via executive fiat and unelected bureaucracies.


The problem is Congress cannot govern any longer. It’s members simply perpetually run for re-election. They have ceded much of their powers to the executive branch (and have been doing so at least as far back as George W, maybe even longer). Now the US federal government largely acts by executive action that is then challenged/modified by the courts. It’s not how it’s supposed to work (and this system is worse). But we are where we are and it is what it is.


Yep, pull a seat up and hear about the tales of a time called Reconstruction and how the errors made there are still being paid for today.


The error was ending reconstruction and letting the South back into the union unreconstructed.


"Four years in the white house in exchange for letting the racists rule the south again? You got yourself a deal!"


>Congress cannot govern any longer Because half of it only exists to prove that it can't


Even the Dems will always have "a bad guy" to blame -- if not Manchin, then the Senate Parliamentarian. The deeper issue is that the establishment in both parties serve the same special interests, and none of those are the best interests of the average American. They sure do put on a good show though, which is truly American.






Congress has already granted OSHA rulemaking authority because it's simply impractical to pass a new law for every workplace rule that needs to be put in place.


[You mean like a Federal Law thats been in place for 51 years passed by Congress?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration) That kind of limit?


OSHA exists yes. The question is, do they have this much power? From the judicial perspective, you’re essentially getting them the power to force people to undergo medical procedures to maintain employment. Imagine if some cutting edge but not very well researched computer brain interface like the neural link came out, and OSHA mandates that every worker must have one installed because it greatly decreases the number of workplace accidents. Should they have that power? I’m gonna say no. We couldn’t just make a bureaucratic organization and call it the MOT(Ministry of truth) and then say that because their goal is to promote truth they can bypass the 1st amendment. Edit: For the record, I am triple vaccinated and I don’t believe that vaccine mandates are inherently problematic. However, I also have a good understanding of legal precedent and the way that law works in this country, and from my understanding this would give the executive branch the power to force the populace to undergo medical procedures of any kind, and it wouldn’t just be limited to vaccines. We would need a congressional bill if we wanted hard limits.


Vaccine mandates for worker safety that originate from osha have been in place for decades. I first encountered it in 1997 around the hepatitis vaccine. Then the Hep B vax was a brand new vaccine, recently authorized and it was get it or be fired. I was an intern in computer science at a pharma company. There was no true workplace safety issue for me other than working at a pharma company and having a cubicle in a building with labs - that worked on cells from non-humans. Last I checked cell lines don’t carry Hep b. OSHA has had and exercised this type of “power” for decades around vaccines. To imply this is a new power is just wrong. There is decades of precedent for this. Not to mention - what got struck down does not force anyone to get vaccinated. You seem to just be ignoring that part.


Hep b vaccine first showed up in 1981. If you got a new product in 97, hopefully it was safe(for all of us who got it about then) There is the unprovable theory the original hep b vac accidentally caused aids. It was developed with chimp liver cells taken from wild chimps. One reason people distrust pharma companies.


If only they had the focus and determination to end covid like they do abortion.


The Supreme Court is dismantling the regulatory state so that even if future generations want more regulation, any attempt will be ruled unconstitutional.


There's an upcoming case related to EPA rules that is much scarier. The "right" decision (pun intended) will dismantle most federal regulations.


Very pleased to see that the correct verdict was reached here.


Well we will be at this a few more years. Cycle through the whole Greek alphabet.


To be honest we will be doing that no matter what. The virus is still able to mutate in vaccinated individuals, and omicron is proof that we're just playing catch up with new strains unfortunately


Unlikely this mandate would have ended this variant or future ones. How did you reach that conclusion?


Hm, would it have been the same outcome if this were something like Ebola where even more people were dying or there were people walking around crying blood and we had a perfectly good vaccine that prevented that?


I think, obviously, severity of the illness is absolutely taken into consideration, and yes if it was more dangerous and transmissible disease it would be a different outcome, just as likely as if it was a significantly less dangerous and transmissible disease.


ebola is easily contained though compared to these viruses


That’s apples and oranges. I don’t think you can realistically compare them solely based on lethality rates


>people crying blood Only if it were hurting the economy and maybe not even then, judging by this ruling.


If OHSA can't regulate public health in the workplace does that mean OHSA can't mandate handwashing?


Big Government Soap Mandate


This article is all over the map but.. >“I do not think that the Federal Government is likely to be able to show that Congress has authorized the unprecedented step of compelling over 10,000,000 healthcare workers to be vaccinated on pain of being fired,” Alito wrote in his dissent. This is wrong. Its absolutely normal and common for Healthcare workers to be REQUIRED to get specific vaccinations regularly to keep their jobs. Flu vaccine being one of them.. TB often being another, depending on where you work, etc. Because of this its not an " unprecedented step of compelling over 10,000,000 healthcare workers to be vaccinated on pain of being fired".... My wife is one of the few thats allergic to one of their yearly shots, and its hell to get an exemption to avoid it. Healthcare workers have less personal healthcare rights then other workers... Not debating if its right, I sure as hell dont think it is, but its been this way for decades, making the quote wrong.




I’ve thought that too. I liked the rule when it was first proposed, but at the time the vaccines were very good at preventing infections and transmissions. There’s great public policy arguments for preventing the spread of disease. But if vaccination doesn’t stop the spread of disease like the MMR vaccine the arguments for a mandate are fewer. I’d still love to see everyone vaccinated for the benefit of the healthcare providers, but it’s less clearly something to legislate.


Funny you mention MMR: > Two doses of MMR vaccine are 88% (range 32% to 95%) effective at preventing mumps. Mumps outbreaks can still occur in highly vaccinated U.S. communities, particularly in settings where people have close, prolonged contact, such as universities and close-knit communities. During an outbreak, public health authorities may recommend an additional dose of MMR for people who belong to groups at increased risk for mumps. An additional dose can help improve protection against mumps disease and related complications. If mumps were anywhere near as prevalent as covid we'd be seeing similar breakthrough cases. And we'd be recommending booster shots. Maybe even mandating them in schools/workplaces. The horror!


Yeah cuz rubella fucking WRECKS a much larger percentage of patients


Why do people keep acting like the vaccines don’t work to prevent cases and spread? This is just misinformation. Some estimates put a Moderna booster in the high 70s for preventing symptomatic infections. Other data shows it reduces time of transmission by 66% once infected if vaccinated. Your immune system is likely creating symptoms in those fully vaccinated before the contagious stage, and thus you are also more likely to quarantine before spreading covid everywhere. A single dose is also likely to reduce a reasonable subset of people from being severely ill. A day in the hospital is a huge difference from a week. 30% of the population is still unvaccinated. It’s clear that covid spreads regionally. It will keep causing huge issues in those communities with low vaccination rates into the spring, at a minimum.


Here's the CDC director saying that "what they can't do anymore is prevent transmission" https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/1423422301882748929?s=20


>Some estimates put a Moderna booster in the high 70s for preventing symptomatic infections. The studies I have seen indicate an upper bound of 40% after a few weeks for Pfizer and J&J. And we can't just focus on symptomatic infections, we also need to look at asymptomatic infections, which are perfectly capable of spreading to others. We see omicron just absolutely ripping through even fully vaccinated workforces. The idea that the vaccinations can work effectively to keep covid out of the workplace is now proven to be totally false. It was effective at basically eliminating covid from the workplace for alpha. There's no point in falling back on 'well no vaccines are totally effective'. Name ONE other mandated vaccine that sees 60% of people vaccinated against it catching the disease. Or even higher than that. There were a lot of high profile stories of fully vaccinated Christmas parties, office get togethers, etc, where like 80 to 90 percent of vaccinated people caught omicron. For alpha, that number would have been like, 1 to 2.


Not sure why ppl are upset by this decision. People are getting vaccinated, it just won’t be required by our government for workers………


Because people can’t see 2 feet in front of them and don’t understand how this time it’s a mandate they like. Next time it may not be, and may be under another Trump-like president. And this is why our government, despite its many flaws, operates the way it does.


Vaccine mandates are always a non starter and not popular in the US. I’m jabbed x3 but at this point people are either going to get the vaccine or they won’t.


Waited an extra couple weeks until Tuesday to get my booster so it was covered under this, providing me up to 4hrs PTO to get it. Now I'm left wondering if work is gonna come back and say "no, there's a stay so it doesn't count, it's coming out of your sick leave". fun.


Your workplace would get on your case over a half day to get the vaccine? That’s gross. I’m sorry.


My work said if you get side effects you can use your state paid sick leave that comes out of your PTO but they were willing to pay for all the antivaxxers testing because it's their cHoIcE. I hate my job.


Yikes. I get paid to stay home and isolate if I’ve had exposure to someone who’s just symptomatic.


Pretty sure the standard didn't actually cover the booster anyway so you probably good


My work basically grandfathered anyone that got their 4 hours PTO before today but it's suspended for anyone after today.


The Supreme Court expressly leaves open more targeted regulations and gives OSHA its path forward -- regulating risks associated with crowded or cramped working conditions is their example. 100+ employees packed into office cubicles? Sounds like a vaccinate-or-test mandate would hold up there. Tailor the regulation a bit more and they'll probably have it.


I agree that the Court gave themselves an "out" by suggesting the mandate wasn't properly written, but I have a feeling we'll see a new mandate with a new court challenge... then months later it'll be overturned. Then we'll get another mandate with another court challenge... later, rinse, etc. In the meantime thousands will die.


The right decision was made today. Covid is a universal risk and not unique to the workplace. It was an overreach from day1.


I don't understand the Supreme Court sometimes. They're saying because "slip & falls" occur outside of the workplace often, that means OSHA doesn't have the authority to regulate those things inside the workplace... because it may also happen outside of the workplace as well? How does that even make sense? Does OSHA have the authority to address workplace threats or do they not? Make it make sense.


Mandate was always a distraction and only served to entrench the population of people who refused to get vaccinated. The government should be working in selling them on the benefits of the vaccine, not ostracizing them and driving further divide.


Good, this would set a terrible precedent.


Honestly I don’t get this. I first encountered OSHA driven employer vaccine mandate in 1998 as an intern at a pharma company, then again as an employee at a research institute in 2003. Both times for the hepatitis vaccine. It was get vaccinated or get fired. For the record, I’m a computer scientist, neither was a healthcare facility or received Medicare or other federal medical care reimbursement funds. I did no lab work with human blood or other bodily fluids. What’s changed in the law around osha employer vaccine mandates between the 1990-2000s and now? This current requirement with a testing out seems LESS strict than get vaccinated or get fired around hepatitis vaccination.


Are you referring to OSHA requiring employers to OFFER the Hep B vaccine to employees? Who if they refuse just have to sign a form documenting that they refused it? Thats not at all similar to a vaccine mandate


> What’s changed in the law around osha employer vaccine mandates between the 1990-2000s and now? It's the Supreme Court that's changed, not the law....


> It was get vaccinated or get fired. That was a company policy not an OSHA requirement.


The overruling of the letter and intent of a law by a politicized Court is a pretty terrible precedent. Especially when the majority opinion reeks of casuistry. In the reading of the law OSHA, in fairly plain language, has the authority to enforce this mandate. [But that isn't just my opinion](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-03/supreme-court-covid-mandates).


Thank you for linking that article. It's somewhat relieving to know there are legal scholars who believe the OSHA rule was constitutional. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading some of the opinions around this stuff.


Correct, this was the wrong way to go about this




Past vaccine mandates doesn’t justify a current one. We need to address the current virus for what it is and I believe this decision is correct. Not enough support to say it needs to be mandated, and should remain a personal choice given the severity of the virus and how small of a percentage of people who experience complications