Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Biden Large Employer Vaccine Mandate Reinstated By 6th Circuit Appeals Court: “the ‘old normal’ is not going to return”

Biden Large Employer Vaccine Mandate Reinstated By 6th Circuit Appeals Court: “the ‘old normal’ is not going to return”

“Recognizing that the “old normal” is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there.”

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1370188126459719684

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals previously halted Joe Biden’s large employer vaccine or test mandate implemented through OSHA as beyond OSHA’s power, and on other additional grounds. After that, multiple cases around the country addressing the same issue were consolidated in the multi-district litigation procedure into a single case before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Given the importance of the case and broad national implications, a request was made for the entire 6th Circuit (“en banc”) to hear the case, not just a three-judge panel. That effort failed:

The Sixth Circuit has denied en banc review in the OSHA vaccine mandate cases.  The vote was a close one, with eight judges voting in favor of initial hearing en banc.  But that’s not enough under the circuit’s rules, which require a majority of the 16 active judges to vote for en banc treatment.  As a result, the current panel reviewing the case will decide whether to continue the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit, which may end up being the most consequential decision in the case until it comes before the Supreme Court.

Judge Moore wrote a short concurrence to the denial, arguing that there is no need to have all 16 active judges review the “massive docket and profusion of briefs” when “three thoughtful, independent judges” have already “spent the past weeks steeped in this matter.”  Judge Moore’s concurrence was joined by four other circuit judges.

Judge Sutton dissented in a 26-page opinion that was joined by seven judges.

The 6th Circuit three judge panel, in a 2-1 vogte, just dissolved the 5th Circuit Order, just reinstated the mandate. You can read the Opinion.

The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy. Throughout, American employees have been trying to survive financially and hoping to find a way to return to their jobs. Despite access to vaccines and better testing, however, the virus rages on, mutating into different variants, and posing new risks. Recognizing that the “old normal” is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there. In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace. On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS or the standard) to protect the health of employees by mitigating spread of this historically unprecedented virus in the workplace. The ETS requires that employees be vaccinated or wear a protective face covering and take weekly tests but allows employers to choose the policy implementing those requirements that is best suited to their workplace. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS pending judicial review, and it renewed that decision in an opinion issued on November 12. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3), petitions challenging the ETS—filed in Circuits across the nation—were consolidated into this court. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(4), we DISSOLVE the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit for the following reasons.

There could be another attempt, now that there is a decision, to seek en banc review, though if it failed one, I don’t see a strong likelhood of it succeeding. More likely, there will be an emergency petition to the Supreme Court since there now is a split in Circuits, with one Circuit overruling another Circuit.

MORE TO FOLLOW

A press release by the Job Creators’ Network indicates they already have made some sort of Supreme Court filing:

“The Job Creators Network is disappointed the 6th Circuit has decided to side with the Biden Administration’s illegal employer vaccine mandate—on a Friday night, no less. This mandate adds an incredible burden on small business owners who are still suffering negative effects of the pandemic. This mandate will make it even harder for small business owners to find and keep employees. The 6th Circuit irresponsibly upheld an illegal rule and expects employers to somehow comply with a complicated regulation in a period of two weeks, including the holidays. JCN has immediately asked the Supreme Court to save businesses and employees from this government overreach.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

When this is over, if it ever is, we won’t recognize what this country has become. The only bodily autonomy we’ll be allowed will be abortion and “gender reassignment,” and the government will control every business through executive orders and expansive statutory readings. All for the greater good, as Fauci reassures us.

    The United States of America is lost, if ever it actually existed. … All communication of opposing views with reference to a common good and future has ended. Violence is likely the only way to resolve existing differences; tyranny has won.

      Dathurtz in reply to Sisu. | December 18, 2021 at 9:00 am

      They can down vote you all day long, but you are right. Tyranny doesn’t just admit it was wrong and ask forgiveness.

      We are waiting for a critical mass of our side to realize this. We will either have war or submit to tyranny. I just hope enough people realize it before submission is the only option.

    alohahola in reply to zennyfan. | December 18, 2021 at 12:23 am

    Your fatalism is deplorable.

    “All for the greater good, as Fauci reassures us.”

    And all done WITHOUT changing the very document to which every one of these public (so-called) officials took an oath to support and defend (Article VI).

    Now that document was intended to limit, which is its essence, the created government.

    But the end result of COVID-19 and the years of effort in building the NWO (hats off, CFR) is unlimited government.

    TJ said it, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [i.e., total government control] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to pfg. | December 18, 2021 at 12:04 pm

      We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      snip . . .

      But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

      Couldn’t have said it better than that.

    JHogan in reply to zennyfan. | December 18, 2021 at 5:34 pm

    Welcome to the Fascist States of America, comrade.

    amwick in reply to zennyfan. | December 18, 2021 at 5:55 pm

    I don’t recognize it now.

Cowardly pieces of shit on SCOTUS SHOULD have ruled on this months ago.

Just like Kavanaugh and the eviction moratorium, they just kicked the can HOPING they wouldn’t have to actually make a decision, and at every turn the insane left has spit in their faces. Kavanaugh and Barrett are proving themselves cowards.

    randian in reply to Olinser. | December 17, 2021 at 9:37 pm

    SCOTUS’ NY ruling implies that Kavanaugh and Barrett will side with the progressives and refuse review of this CA6 decision.

    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | December 18, 2021 at 10:19 pm

    SCOTUS couldn’t have ruled months ago on OSHA rules that hadn’t been issued yet.

    artichoke in reply to Olinser. | December 19, 2021 at 10:33 pm

    They might vote 5-4 to uphold and strengthen all Biden’s ideas. Kavanaugh and Barrett are scary. I think we have a better chance with someone like Sotomayor seeing how all this is damaging her community and nobody’s coming to bail them out this time.

Meanwhile the nearly fully vaccinated NFL, NBA and NHL are canceling games due to COVID outbreaks. Tell me again why anyone would get these vaccines? THEY DON’T WORK!

We are reaching the point where people will need to hang over this. This is a violation of basic human rights in the name of panic.

    Dathurtz in reply to Voyager. | December 18, 2021 at 8:52 am

    We passed it almost a year ago.

    artichoke in reply to Voyager. | December 19, 2021 at 10:34 pm

    It’s a fight to the death. They know the sentiment against them, and they have to keep it tamped down to save their necks. This is yet another way of saying the country as a unified entity is over.

So, the Constitution is now the “old normal”? Just curious, the courts have aggrandized to themselves immense power, ever since Marbury v Madison, professing to be the bulwark against government overreach. What happens after they abrogate this assumed role? Maybe not now, maybe not for a few years, but this union won’t remain viable under these circumstances.

    Sally MJ in reply to Concise. | December 17, 2021 at 11:29 pm

    It’s Biden who — well, he never was “normal“.

    Arminius in reply to Concise. | December 17, 2021 at 11:31 pm

    No, the constitution isn’t the “old order.” It’s just a question of, which one? The U.S. Constitution is, of course. But the Soviet constitution is the “new normal.” It’s what the left always wanted. It’s the constitution the Democrats actually were swearing to support, protect, and defend when they got elected and sworn into office.

    Milhouse in reply to Concise. | December 18, 2021 at 10:18 pm

    This isn’t about the constitution. Nobody (so far) is claiming the mandate is unconstitutional. The claim is that it exceeds OSHA’s power under its enabling statute. Congress could give it this power, but according to the petitioners it hasn’t.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2021 at 6:44 pm

      I take it, then, you haven’t read Sutton’s dissent.

      I’m not going to clean up the artifacts of the PDF file.

      “In this case, a multitude of petitioners—individuals, businesses, labor unions, and state
      governments—have levied serious, and varied, charges against the mandate’s legality. They say,
      for example, that the mandate violates the nondelegation doctrine, the Commerce Clause, and
      substantive due process; some say that it violates their constitutionally protected religious
      liberties and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. To lift the stay entirely, we would
      have to conclude that not one of these challenges is likely to succeed. A tall task. To keep the
      stay, however, there is no need to resolve each of these questions; the stay should remain if we
      conclude that petitioners are likely to succeed on just one ground. In my view, the petitioners
      have cleared this much lower bar on even the narrowest ground presented here: The Secretary of
      Labor lacks statutory authority to issue the mandate. So the most important factor supporting the
      stay is satisfied…In this case, a multitude of petitioners—individuals, businesses, labor unions, and state
      governments—have levied serious, and varied, charges against the mandate’s legality. They say,
      for example, that the mandate violates the nondelegation doctrine, the Commerce Clause, and
      substantive due process; some say that it violates their constitutionally protected religious
      liberties and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. To lift the stay entirely, we would
      have to conclude that not one of these challenges is likely to succeed. A tall task. To keep the
      stay, however, there is no need to resolve each of these questions; the stay should remain if we
      conclude that petitioners are likely to succeed on just one ground. In my view, the petitioners
      have cleared this much lower bar on even the narrowest ground presented here: The Secretary of
      Labor lacks statutory authority to issue the mandate. So the most important factor supporting the
      stay is satisfied.,,”

      I await your response to how Judge Sutton must be wrong for imagining that plaintiffs have argued the mandate violates the Constitution on several grounds since you who are never wrong say “Nobody (so far) is claiming the mandate is unconstitutional.”

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | December 19, 2021 at 6:46 pm

        I have no idea why the excerpt I copied pasted twice since it sure looked like I only pasted it once when I previewed it.

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | December 19, 2021 at 6:56 pm

        I especially enjoyed how Judge Sutton picked up on something I already commented on days ago.

        “The majority opinion describes the emergency rule at issue here as permitting employers
        “to determine for themselves how best to minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19 in their
        workplaces.” Maj. Op. at 7. With respect, that was the state of federal law before the rule, not
        after.”

        It’s delusional to claim this rule merely permits anything. It requires something. Yet the Judge writing the majority opinion writes as if this mandate is somehow a voluntary arrangement.

        “Recognizing that the “old normal” is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there.”

        And as if the petitioners actually asked for OSHA to do this. Common sense would tell you that the very people who are fighting this mandate didn’t ask for this.

        Yet the Obama appointee writing for the majority is just such a delusional person.

VetHusbandFather | December 17, 2021 at 9:49 pm

I simply cannot understand this. Given the mass outbreaks in fully vaccinated enclaves like Cornell University, how could any educated person possibly believe this will promote workplace safety? If these judges truly believe this garbage then they must demand these dictates be equally applied. If any employee needs to be tested daily, they should all be tested daily. Anything else is unlawful retaliation against “disobedient” employees.

    It’s not about ‘workplace safety’. It’s about fascism.

    No one should be tested at all. Period.

    They know everything you said. You need to swallow the red pill and realize our actual situation.

    It’s not up to the judges how it’s applied. The only question before them is whether OSHA has the authority to issue such an emergency regulation. If it does, the court’s opinion on its wisdom is irrelevant.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2021 at 7:08 pm

      Again, if you read the dissent you’d see that is exactly what the majority based it’s decision; is this a worthy policy goal. They never actually reached the legality or constitutionality of the OSHA mandate. Which is why Judge Larsen (I don’t know why I said Sutton) wrote:

      “LARSEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. As the Supreme Court has very recently reminded
      us, “our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”

      Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021). The
      majority’s theme is that questions of health science and policy lie beyond the judicial ken.
      I agree.”

      He’s calling out the majority for considering the policy first and giving short shrift to the legal questions. As well as SCOTUS precedent.

      Which is exactly how liberal activists on the court always decide matters. First they ask, “Do I agree with this policy?” If they do, then of course it’s legal.

UnCivilServant | December 17, 2021 at 9:56 pm

I’m not seeing how one circuit can overrule a different circuit.

    I don’t get it either. Of course, we’re no longer a nations of laws.

    Why not? The 5th circuit’s injunction was national. So why can’t the 6th reverse it?

    In any case, the 6th has now been given full power over the whole topic, so it stands to reason that injunctions issued on the topic are now in its hands.

    It looks like the objections to the 5th Circuit ruling were assigned to a random circuit.

    “Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3), petitions challenging the ETS—filed in Circuits across the nation—were consolidated into this court. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(4), we DISSOLVE the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit for the following reasons.”

    This is the statute, and section a3 calls for a circuit to be randomly selected as I read it:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2112

Just say no. Let them fire everyone,

When is a CT going to stop deferring to a default position that:
1. An emergency actually exists, an endemic virus isn’t an emergency.
2. The policy proposal actually addresses the scope of that emergency in the least intrusive and least burdensome manner possible.

If new variants emerging will be presumed to automatically extend the period of short term emergency then this emergency is infinite and therefore no longer a short term emergency but rather a new normalized long-term circumstance. That new circumstance should be addressed via the normal political process of direct legislation by the duly elected representatives of the people, not via an innovative executive fiat.

The proposed policy solution; a vaccine mandate doesn’t meet the test of basic logic. The vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission. The CDC acknowledges this and acknowledge that the vaccines are not even close to 90%+ effectiveness v delta and omicron. Where is a recognition of naturally acquired immunity in the proposed policy especially now that multiple studies have demonstrated that it has higher efficacy and longer duration? Where is the updated protocol post positive testing utilizing low cost and generic options; surely during an ’emergency’ of two year duration the worldwide medical community of practitioners have developed beyond ‘go home, drink fluids, take asprin?

How about objections based on religion or conscious? What accommodations exist here similar to previous questions of objection to other policies based on religion or conscious including health policy? Why is Rona different? The time has come for those seeking policy mandates to be forced to demonstrate that their policy prescription is effective as well as the least intrusive option available to them. Simply yelling emergency doesn’t make it so, nor should our public policy be reduced to a perverse version of childhood games called Biden Says.

Whoever of the judges wrote what is printed here is ignorant of the scientific and medical issues involved with the vaccines. As to his/her understanding of shut downs, social distancing, mask wearing and being forced to get vaccinated, it’s even worse. I heard a Karen cry when I read it. A bunch of asses. Now on to Brett & Amy.

    Voyager in reply to Titan28. | December 18, 2021 at 1:07 pm

    I will argue it is not a medical question but a moral one.

    Both the vaccine and bare covid carry an indeterminate risk of death, and to say you must take this risk over that risk is to declare yourself god over their life.

    It is such a wrong even the stones cry out.

Now that Comirnaty is approved the, the experimental vaccines have to be pulled from the market. That is the law. Comirnaty is approved but not available. So by ruling for the mandates, the judges are ruling against the law. They are forcing people to take experimental vaccines that are illegally on the market.

    Ironclaw in reply to InEssence. | December 18, 2021 at 12:00 am

    This is true, but since when does the government give a crap about the law?

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to InEssence. | December 18, 2021 at 12:26 pm

    The FDA pulled a bait and switch on that Comirnaty approval. They approved Comirnaty and then immediately in the same approval document declared it to be in critical short supply. The FDA then declared Comirnaty to be “bio-identical” to the Pfizer/BioNTech developed vaccine and gave authorization for the continued use of the original Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

    So the chances are good that anyone who would bother to look at the vial of vaccine before being injected would discover it is still the Pfizer/BioNTech EUA vaccine and not the actual approved Comirnaty vaccine. Which of course is illegal since the original vaccine’s EUA expired the moment they approved Comirnaty. But here we are and there you go.

      If they’re giving you EUAvax rather than Comirnaty, they’d better have you sign an informed consent form. Not that you can do anything if they don’t. All you can do is demand to see the bottle. And if that screws up your appt., then I guess you get fired or whatever consequences await those who decline the vax.

Thie big problem is that the vaccines are trash. They are leaky, ineffective to prevent infection, and have stunning rates of injury.

    Reuters reported on 12/10/21 that the 34 of the first 43 cases of Omicron identified in the US were fully vaccinated. Of those, 14 were boosted, although they were quick to point out that 5 of those boosted had been boosted within the 14 days so not fully effective (like the immune system works only on day 14…..). Still, expanding off of small numbers, (which is what the FDA used for approving the EUA for boosting ), this argues that nearly 25% of Omicron cases are in boosted AND since the US has only been boosting for a couple of months, Omicron is occuring in individuals before titers wear off. Yet, the Science ™ bandwagon is screaming at people to get boosted because Omicron is coming.

    TX-rifraph in reply to Valerie. | December 18, 2021 at 7:27 am

    The “vaccines” are not trash to the enemy. They are an effective bioweapon. Bill Gates is a psychopath who has stated the planet must have fewer people. Bill Gates pushes the shots that are clothed in lies and secrecy and tyranny. Connection maybe? We are the trash per BG.

    Arminius in reply to Valerie. | December 18, 2021 at 1:52 pm

    They are only trash in the sense that they aren’t even medicine let alone vaccines. But they’re a license to print money; the government buys the supply, then forces you to take them. Then because they don’t work, they have to pay Moderna, Pfizer, J&J to make more so you can get your software update which they tell you are “boosters” (which they are not), which also won’t work. Wash, rinse, repeat. This may become obvious to even the dullest of leftist when they are told they aren’t “fully vaccinated” when they’re on their seventh round, still masked, still locked down, but by then it will be too late.

    Meanwhile the pharmaceutical companies that produce these mRNA jabs are making out like the bandits who they are, and don’t think they won’t show their gratitude to the party that made it possible. And I’d love to see the stock portfolios of Pelosi, Fauci, and the Biden crime family.

    The real value, I think, is the same as propaganda in current and former communist dictatorships. It was to make you repeat lies in public that no one actually believed. In other words, everybody was forced to pretend to think one thing in public while they actually thought something else in private. Orwell would be familiar with the title of former Soviet refusenik Natan Sharansky’s recent article in Tablet:

    https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/natan-sharansky-doublethink

    “The Doublethinkers
    In assessing my own liberation, I recall a conformity that feels terrifyingly familiar today
    BY
    NATAN SHARANSKY WITH GIL TROY”

    When it came to humiliating people the more obviously ridiculous the lie, the better. And by humiliating people by forcing them to repeat the most absurd lies, nobody knew who they could trust. They were forced to ask themselves who if anyone around them repeating those absurdities actually believed them. Was it safe to ask and risk getting turned in by an informant In the GDR we now know that one in three people were Stasi informants; the housing shortage served that communist regime well since typically 6 family members were packed into a tiny apartment so at least one would be a Stasi informant. And if you slipped up in your own home and said something “disloyal” that informant would turn you in and since not only you but your immediate family members would be arrested the informant and his family members would have the place to himself.

    Forcing people to take mRNA jabs which are not vaccines and obviously don’t work is simply a way to humiliate people; you must be unquestioningly obedient or you can’t work. You can’t participate in society. Your God given rights guaranteed by the U.S. rights have been stripped away and replaced by Soviet-style rights granted by the state depending on your level of obedience. I suppose people would be more familiar with the Chinese “social credit” system rights granted now by the CCP.

    Your mask and vaccine passport are symbols of your obedience. Public health has never been the point. The point was to render the U.S. Constitution meaningless. How many times does Biden have to sneer at people insisting on their rights as being “unpatriotic” before you’ll catch on?

    I’m looking at you, whoever downvoted me when I said the “new normal” would be the Soviet constitution. Only someone with an IQ of a tablespoon believes that what happened on 1/6 was an “insurrection.” Their real crime was “anti-Soviet agitation.” which was a serious felony in the USSR and amounted to doing anything to undermine faith in the regime.

    You know, like questioning the legitimacy of an election.

    As my friends who escaped communist dictatorships have often observed, you have no idea what you’re dealing with.

“Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace.”

I do believe that assurance is limited to dangers to which make a workplace unsafe and present harm to worker’s health arising from the daily operations of that business. Not from workers not using seat belts on the way to work. Not from workers downing shots at the local bar while on vacation. Not from workers whose child has chickenpox. Not from a worker exposed to TB. There may be legit reasons for a company to require vaccines. That however is not under the authority of OSHA.

COVID-19 vaccines pose a real danger to young adult males. Who are a large portion of the workforce. People are going to die because of this order.

is a hell of a thing when the people of this country have no standing

Is there really a split in Circuits that the S..Ct will recognize as meriting review.? We don’t have competing decisions. There is one decision in the Circuit where all cases were consolidated. I can see our brave Court sitting this one out.

IANAL, but how does it stand legally with circuits overruling one another? Could the 5th circuit proceed to an en banc hearing and then overule the 6th? Or would new cases need to be submitted across various Red States and then assembled under say the 5th to override the 6th circuit’s ruling?

What happens if employers adhere to the 5th circuit stay and await a SCOTUS decision? Can Xiden and the Democrats persecute non-compliant conduct whilst waiting given it is impossible to unvaccinate someone and if everyone in work is vaccinated it is no longer possible for SCOTUS to rectify the issue.

    No, the case is no longer before the 5th circuit. The stay was against OSHA and now that it longer exists OSHA says it will start enforcing its regulation in January. Employers can’t “adhere” to a stay; the stay didn’t involve them. And if everyone in work is vaccinated the supreme court can still rectify it by allowing employers to re-employ the unvaccinated they had to fire before. If those people all got vaccinated, then there will no longer be an issue to rectify; no harm will be done, at least as far as the law is concerned. Remember unvaccinated employees are not a party to this at all. They are just bystanders waiting to see how things play out between their bosses and OSHA.

Remember OSHA does not want the rule to be limited to large employers. Expect a rule to be proposed or initiated covering all businesses.

    Milhouse in reply to JRaeL. | December 18, 2021 at 10:48 pm

    I don’t think OSHA has authority over small businesses.

      JRaeL in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2021 at 1:15 am

      I had to check the threshold for private employers. Only those with 10 or fewer employees are exempt.

      JRaeL in reply to Milhouse. | December 19, 2021 at 1:18 am

      Correction. Such employers have a partial exemption from OSHA regs.

      “Employers who have ten or fewer employees have a partial exemption from OSHA’s extensive record-keeping requirements. These employers are not required to keep OSHA injury and illness records unless OSHA mandates explicitly for this. However, these employers are nevertheless required to report any workplace injuries or fatalities.”

Who’s up for heating the tar and sharpening the pitchforks?

These POS need to fear We the People.

“……In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency)…”

THAT is not how it went.

Slow Creepy Joe went to OSHA because as president he knew he did not have the authority. He publicly admitted that early this year. He used a seldom used emergency order for something which took months for them to compose (so where is the emergency?) and the 5th Circuit shot full of holes earlier. This is a backdoor effort to create another mandate by the corrupt democrat administration.

“…employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there.”

WTFO? We’re talking about a tyrannical government imposing a mandate. How can any sentient human being say that this is “employers and employees” voluntarily entering into new arrangements?

The phrasing of this atrocious decision is akin to the left saying they are going to “ask” the wealthy to pay their fair share when everyone knows they’ll force people at gun point to pay whatever they demand.

If this ruling is allowed to stand it will rank along with the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions.

Clearly when Biden decides to order forced vaccinations and builds Australian style concentration camps the courts will go along with that as well.

    Precisely. Employers & employees sought no such thing. Employers were the plaintiffs for crissakes. This is one of the most bizarre rulings I’ve ever seen.

      Milhouse in reply to Daiwa. | December 18, 2021 at 10:50 pm

      Um, no. Some employers were the plaintiffs. Not “employers” generally.

        You don’t say. Gee willikers.

          Milhouse in reply to Daiwa. | December 19, 2021 at 1:47 pm

          So now you agree with me. You admit that only some employers were the plaintiffs, and not employers generally. Then how could you make your previous comment? Do you now withdraw your previous comment? Because I’m not seeing that. And yet it is the only honest thing for you to do.

          Arminius in reply to Daiwa. | December 19, 2021 at 7:27 pm

          You don’t get it, do you Milhouse? It’s the majority opinion that treats employers and employees as if they’re monolithic entities. Again:

          “…employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there.”

          You owe the rest of us an apology. It is the court that’s overgeneralizing, not us. It’s the court that’s saying “employers” and “employees” turned to OSHA for guidance. Clearly if employers and employees are among the petitioners then not all did.

          But the court is acting as if it we’re talking about all.

          artichoke in reply to Daiwa. | December 19, 2021 at 10:58 pm

          Milhouse, in context his statement is correct logically unless there were also some employers on the other side. If I get beaten up by three Peruvians, I can say that my attackers were Peruvians without implying that every single citizen of Peru took a swing at me.

Dirt bag Al Franken used to open the new decade with a meme… which was this decade is the “Al Franken” decade…. well the 20s are turning out to be

“Let’s see how much control the government, big corporations and the woke cult can take over your life” decade.”

NO.

So now we have courts enabling fascism, do we? Why am I not surprised?

If there is bloodshed, history will hold the courts responsible

    TX-rifraph in reply to paracelsus. | December 18, 2021 at 7:18 am

    We will be responsible.

    POTUS Reagan – “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

    Are we not “remembering” already?

Wait a minute. I clearly remember learning in law school that one circuit decision is not binding on another circuit. Hence the term “circuit split.” How the hell does the 6th Circuit get to decide anything that affects the 5th?

    TX-rifraph in reply to Othniel. | December 18, 2021 at 7:12 am

    Answer: Tyranny.

    Law is a weapon, not a restraint. That is the new normal (enemy’s words) that the enemy is attempting to implement. This is easy to see if one considers the widespread evil and corruption. It is easy to miss if one focuses on events as though they are isolated. How does one build a circumstantial case in court?

    catscradle in reply to Othniel. | December 18, 2021 at 1:29 pm

    The case was reassigned to the 6th Circuit by the J.P.M.L. (whose 7 members are appointed by CJ Roberts), and the 6th Circuit dissolved the stay nationwide.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2112#a_3

    Milhouse in reply to Othniel. | December 18, 2021 at 10:52 pm

    In what way does it affect the 5th? The case is not in the 5th any more. It has been consolidated into the 6th. 0bama wanted it moved to DC, but the 6th said no, we’re keeping it.

    In any case, why don’t you better ask what authority the 5th had to issue an injunction that covers the whole nation?

    artichoke in reply to Othniel. | December 19, 2021 at 11:01 pm

    A lawyer should read the statute cited. Paragraph a3 of https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2112 . Apparently there were challenges to the 5th C. stay, and so randomly the 6th C. was selected to hear and resolve them.

The more I learn about the law, the more I realize how little of it I understand. I had no idea one Circuit could set aside the decision of another. I thought in cases like that, the decisions are limited to the litigants. Guess not.

In spite of the recent NY setback, I still think this Court is more likely than not to constrain the federal overreach of OSHA even if it gives the states a very wide birth on vaccine mandates. We’ll see.

I was looking for a law that anybody can privately sue any company that doesn’t have a mandate but that would have to pass some legislature.

Just Say No.
And there will be hard times a-comin’.

Still no authority in OSHA.

    That is probably true. And the 6th may eventually decide so. And no matter how it decides, it will probably go to the supreme court. With perhaps a stop en banc first. In the meantime we are only talking about the stay.

Can’t we go to another appeals court or back to the 5th to overrule this one?

” In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace.”

No, they didn’t.

The only time employers even considered contacting OSHA was after the administration decided to force a mandate using OSHA as cover and employers needed to know the details.

Anyone who talks about accepting a “new normal” should be punched in the face.

Since when do judges decide what the ‘new normal’ is? And that we can’t go back to the ‘old normal’?

Where ‘normal’ is the law of the land the only government body Constitutionally empowered to change ‘normal’ is the legislature. Neither the executive nor the judiciary can dictate a ‘new normal’ and dictate the ‘old normal’ can never return. That is for the people to decide through their elected representatives.

There is no way in hell Congress ever intended to give OSHA the power to dictate what medical procedures the entire workforce must submit to.

Biden is behaving like a Nazi dictator. If the courts let him get away with it we officially become a 1930’s style fascist state.

    artichoke in reply to JHogan. | December 19, 2021 at 11:03 pm

    Yeah I want a new normal in the judicial branch. There’s no going back to the old normal. Judges who support tyranny are removed in the new judicial normal.

Are judges required to recuse themselves if they have conflicts of interest? If so, is having received the COVID vaccine a conflict of interest?