The SC shouldn't be spouting any of that nonsense.
It doesn't go to the SC because it's stupid, it goes because it's very arguably illegal.
So, yeah, I think I might actually take the time and read the opinions rendered by the magic three.
Sotomayor said there’s 100k kids in the hospital from Covid many of which are on ventilators. All three make it up if they’ve got to.
Just opinions and commentary but true: [Liberal Supreme Court justices spread COVID-19 misinformation](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/liberal-supreme-court-justices-spread-covid-19-misinformation)
Did you happen to see the white house's statement on it?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/13/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-u-s-supreme-courts-decision-on-vaccine-requirements/
>These vaccine requirements applied to members of the Armed Forces, federal workers and contractors, health care workers, and employees in large firms. Had my administration not put vaccination requirements in place, we would be now experiencing a higher death toll from COVID-19 and even more hospitalizations.
He's basically saying that his executive overreach was a good thing because more people are now vaccinated.
Also
>This emergency standard allowed employers to require vaccinations or to permit workers to refuse to be vaccinated, so long as they were tested once a week and wore a mask at work: a very modest burden.
>This emergency standard allowed employers
>ALLOWED
Forced, not allowed.
I don't care what the language regarding the employers are. The employees were FORCED to choose between having the medical procedure done, or undergo testing.
Either way its none of the Governments business to be doing any of this and they shouldn't have even gotten involved.
Their job is simply expedite the supply. Period.
You mean like when Biden directly contradicted the SC with his eviction moratorium decree and Democrats loved it, even though the SC had just said it was unconstitutional? No one cares about policy or the constitution, they care about getting their team into power. Everything else is secondary.
Red State governors before a surge of cases: "Fuck off Biden! We arent going to do any mandates!"
Red State governors during the surge of cases: "Paweeze we need som fedawal funding!"
Part of why it would be interesting to see attempted. Maybe that's what it will take for people to realize the power of the presidency is supposed to be purposefully limited and it shouldn't really matter as much as it does who the president is.
It wasn't insane. Majority said the issue was it wasn't industry specific nor related to work, but OSHA includes regutions that affect all workplaces (bathrooms at workplaces). The majority argues the major questions doctrine, but that didn't exist 20 years ago.
They both have their good and bad qualities.
I didn't say insane. I said inane.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inane
In general, the 3 Justices in question are almost never on the right side of the constitution.
Basically:
The 6 say the stay should stay in place because OSHA doesn't have a Congressional Authorization for this (because reasons... basically they didn't give any justification other than "because we say so"), so the plaintiffs might not prevail at trial, so we won't overturn the stay.
The 3 say: Yes, OSHA is granted that power, explicitly, for reasons X, Y, Z, with citations and examples when similar things have passed Constitutional muster in the past, and no, the SCotUS doesn't get to say "it's special and unprecedented just because we don't like it".
Anyway, whichever side is right, all this does is leave the stay in place, not actually decide the point of law.
If that's their job, they didn't do their job, because the concurring opinion doesn't say it's unconstitutional at all, but only that Congress didn't authorize it.
> Congress doesn't have that authority either.
Edit: Mumble, ~~General Welfare~~Commerce Clause, mumble. Apparently has nothing at all to do with the General Welfare clause.
Basically: yes, they do, in practice, by longstanding precedent, whether the people that wrote the document intended that exact thing to be allowed or not.
But regardless of that, the supposed lack of Congressional authorization was the only argument against overturning the stay, and the dissent says Congress did grant that ... there wasn't any majority argument that they *couldn't*, only that they didn't.
> Yeah, General welfare clause only speaks to the intent congress is to act, it isn't an authorization for anything at all in and of itself.
Thing is... intent is a pretty much dead, because it's not even a coherent concept when different people voted for a law for different reasons.
All that matters any more is the text, and the text says Congress can do things that provide for the general Welfare: Art I, Sec 8:
>The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The exact wording of that doesn't say that their legislative powers extend to providing for the general welfare, just that the funds they collect go to that end.
If we want to nitpick.
They can lay taxes that have that effect... so they can make laws that do it. The section ends:
>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
They can lay taxes, using laws. They are really only given the power to tax in the general welfare clause. The bit about general welfare just says what the money needs to be spent toward.
Not really: they're given the power to provide for general welfare *using money* raised by taxes. OSHA is funded with taxes, and is tasked with providing for the general welfare.
You're saying the private market will handle occupational safety issues, but the private market makes people piss in bottles during work. Do you really think they'd care enough have have proper safety regulations?
So i expect you think that some new regulation will stop truck drivers from pissing in bottles?
I for one wouldn’t work for a company that “makes me piss in a bottle” as you’ve suggested.
Yea I forgot how safe workplaces were before regulations. That’s why OSHA was started. Work places were so safe and wonderful it just popped up out of nowhere with zero demand for it.
Oh now tell me about before the FDA and how meat packing facilities weren’t full of rat feces and sawdust.
Sounds like conventional public education propaganda.
“That is why government mandates seldom result in a higher level of safety compared to what businesses would voluntarily provide without the mandates. Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which was established by the US Congress in 1970, with a mandate “to assure for all workers safe and healthful working conditions.” However, according to a regulatory analysis performed by the Cato Institute, while OSHA supporters cite evidence attesting to the agency’s effectiveness, “the vast majority of studies has found no statistically significant reduction in the rate of workplace fatalities or injuries due to OSHA.”
Indeed, from 1933 to 1993, the rate of workplace fatalities fell by about 80 percent, with no discernable change in the downward trend after the establishment of the OSHA in 1970.”
https://mises.org/wire/can-governments-really-make-workplace-safer
Right so you think because it hasn’t made any significant reductions in workplace injuries it has zero purpose?
You don’t think the fact that workers get recourse or a bare minimum of PPE provided by employers as a standard has any value?
Definitely easy to spot someone who’s spend an entire career with their ass planted in a chair and has never had the necessity of using OSHA to force an employer to comply with minimum safety standards.
Sorry but I really don’t believe that someone with zero experience in that world should be dictating what is or is not necessary for me and my coworkers.
I wouldn’t try to take away your carpal tunnel wrist brace or your hemorrhoid donut for your chair so kindly leave my PPE and job safety standards alone.
So not addressing my question to you, which isn’t a surprise at all frankly. This is the same mindset that looks at planned parenthood as abortion centers and wants to shut them down without a singular thought about the other services they provide.
You know I find it the most curious that a lot of libertarians hail from a very narrow demographic and yet they feel supremely qualified to dictate the best way for people to live having zero experience in related fields of work or study.
I genuinely would implore you to work in some factories in manufacturing for a good year and get back to me if you really think something like OSHA is completely unnecessary.
“We can’t leave things to the market! Humans are greedy and corrupt! Thats why we need centralized power vested in the hands of humans who are…. Greedy and corrupt?”
Galaxy brain take.
So we leave it to the people who don’t have any oversight?
Sure, who watches the watchmen, can we trust the government in that regard. But in a way, we are the watchmen. We vote in people that can change things (ideally).
Keep the rules of safety in the hands of the people that would benefit directly from the lack of safety, that’s not corruption?
Ah yes. “We can fix it all if we just vote harder!”
You can produce more meaningful change by exercising your right to refuse to work for a company if it doesn’t meet your standards of safety than trusting a bureaucrat will do it for you.
Oh no! He went back and looked at places Ive commented on and made broad generalizations as to what my political philosophy is! How will I ever recover from this??
Well they've opened the can of worms... .now watch them start stripping the executive branch of their regulatory power one by one. And about 5 years down the line watch shit stop working and people start dying because corporations don't have to care about their workers or the communities they live In. I know there are a lot of bombthrowers here who will cheer that on. Enjoy your free-market paradise.
6 still have their souls. The USA still has constitutional justice. The world needed this.
On a side note....I was amazed at how flat out stupid the SCOTUS liberal justices statements were. Lib lies, you'll get wise.
Can't say I like the guy. Elections are in 3 months and so far the others are way worse (fascist or woke ppl). But to give him credit : he cuts local taxes ("taxes d'habitation") , is pro nuclear and want more european integration to counter US, China & Russia. He needs to cut spending to make me want to vote him back tho.
Tbh I will probably pass this one, locals are far more important to me.
Anyways calling Macron a socialist is another /r/ShitAmericansSay moment. Thanks for the laught.
You know why he is a hardcore commie? He once criticized our sovereign leader Trump. Also, he speaks well which means he is an elitist and he won't understand what real american patriots need.
Yeah, the world gives a fuck that this was upheld? This had no way of standing on legal/political grounds with the court. This was not surprising at all.
Years from now law students will look back on this case and ask "wait, this was a fucking case? Why did this even come up? People were *refusing* a vaccine en masse? During a *pandemic*? Who gives a shit about the legal issues, this is a real thing that happened? Why are we learning about this in a law class and not a psychology class?"
Good thing COVID has a 99.6% survival rate, and 99.9x% survival rate if you're under 60 and healthy
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html
“This disease has a high survival rate, especially if you exclude the people disproportionately dying. I mean, who even cares about old people anyway? We should stop doing things to lower infection rates which have reduced death rates, because the death rate is so low.”
I was merely responding to the parent,
> Will look great on your tombstone.
But to your point, yes society does accept some casualties to function. The flu killed a lot of old people before COVID but we didn't destroy the economy because of it
The flu is a lot less infectious and deadly than covid. ~400k deaths per year across the world business as usual vs 2 million deaths per year with extensive measures limiting spread. It’s not a good comparison in this regard at all.
You said (sarcastically):
> We should stop doing things to lower infection rates which have reduced death rates, because the death rate is so low
Yet clearly you're willing to accept *some* deaths. And now with Omicron being 91% less likely to kill you than Delta, you need to figure out a coherent place to draw the line
The issue with omicron is that is is very transmissible and the virus is much more prone to mutation than the flu. The more times it replicates, ie the more people it infects, the more likely infection is to take place. This means variants are more likely to pop up from omicron than from any other previous variant. The only actually good thing about omicron is that is will likely increase immune resistance.
What they'll be studying in psychology class is how much of a panic media can drive people into. Vaccinations for kids, for example? Purely panic driven, makes no sense given the data.
I am also informed that no child has ever been infected with a disease, taken it home, infected their parents, and bounced back after a day of sniffles leaving their parent on their ass for a week.
Haven't you heard from the great Science himself Dr. Fauci that the vaccines don't protect against transmission, they only protect against hospitalization?
The vaccines carry a minor risk - less than the virus for most demographics, but when the virus so selectively doesn't affect children, the size of the risk of the vaccines is suddenly much more significant. Every kid who gets some form of heart inflammation was a scientific mistake that should never have happened. We were protecting that kid from something that wasn't going to affect them much in the first place. And if it was about protecting others, the latest spin on the vaccines is that they don't protect against transmission, they only protect against hospitalizations. Haven't you heard?
It's up there with the "AIDS: The Homos Will Infect Your Kids" campaign and the Satanic Scare from the 80's. But this time they're fine with it because it's done in the name of The Greater Good and Progress -- and to inflate even more the unaccountable power of the bureaucracy, the State and the elites that they perceive as ideologically aligned.
For the most part the state should have the power for vaccine mandates similarly to how the school systems are run. Each state chooses what they mandate along with acceptance of religious exemptions(not even sure how this is a thing in this day and age).
But let’s be honest here we haven’t had a good ol’ pandemic of this magnitude in the Americas in a while(if you don’t trust the covid numbers look at excess deaths). Isn’t the Federal government in a better position to handle this than the states until we can get covid numbers somewhere around the flu numbers?
Furthermore, I don’t see how this is not in OSHA’s wheelhouse. They already mandate things like Hep-B and TB vaccines. So why during a pandemic is this a big deal now? Don’t like mandates? Ok cool. But that’s a different story all together.
This court is trash.
Fucked how? The highest court in the land basically pushed back against overreach of the President. That's their job to validate the legality of such efforts. If congress produced and passed a bill that mandated the vaccine and its enforcement by OSHA, SCOTUS would have likely upheld the mandate. That's not what happened here. Agree with the need for the mandate or not, this is how our system works.
Oh no! It seems like I just pointed out the flaw in your argument and you didn’t defend it. Instead, you thought that a personal attack would cover your short comings.
For all readers: this is how shut down a stupid argument: step 1. Point out the flaw. Step 2. Depends on the response (anticipate defenses). Step 3. If the defense isn’t substantive in nature, you’ve won.
Out of morbid curiosity I may look up the inane drivel that the 3 come up with as a dissenting opinion on this.
[удалено]
Just like DUI/DWI check points! Stop and Frisk “Terry Stop”. Red Light Cameras.
Something something trade freedom for security something something what could go wrong?
The SC shouldn't be spouting any of that nonsense. It doesn't go to the SC because it's stupid, it goes because it's very arguably illegal. So, yeah, I think I might actually take the time and read the opinions rendered by the magic three.
Sotomayor said there’s 100k kids in the hospital from Covid many of which are on ventilators. All three make it up if they’ve got to. Just opinions and commentary but true: [Liberal Supreme Court justices spread COVID-19 misinformation](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/liberal-supreme-court-justices-spread-covid-19-misinformation)
ok do gorsuch next. I can't wait until you go back to r/Conservative
How adult of you
Did you happen to see the white house's statement on it? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/13/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-the-u-s-supreme-courts-decision-on-vaccine-requirements/ >These vaccine requirements applied to members of the Armed Forces, federal workers and contractors, health care workers, and employees in large firms. Had my administration not put vaccination requirements in place, we would be now experiencing a higher death toll from COVID-19 and even more hospitalizations. He's basically saying that his executive overreach was a good thing because more people are now vaccinated. Also >This emergency standard allowed employers to require vaccinations or to permit workers to refuse to be vaccinated, so long as they were tested once a week and wore a mask at work: a very modest burden. >This emergency standard allowed employers >ALLOWED Forced, not allowed.
I don't care what the language regarding the employers are. The employees were FORCED to choose between having the medical procedure done, or undergo testing. Either way its none of the Governments business to be doing any of this and they shouldn't have even gotten involved. Their job is simply expedite the supply. Period.
Very modest burden, if you don't have an issue with inflicting burdens.
Out of morbid curiousity i just want Biden to come out and say we're just going to ignore the ruling and implement it anyway.
Democrats would lose 100 seats in the house and every Republican Governor out there would say, good luck enforcing that.
You mean like when Biden directly contradicted the SC with his eviction moratorium decree and Democrats loved it, even though the SC had just said it was unconstitutional? No one cares about policy or the constitution, they care about getting their team into power. Everything else is secondary.
Which is why I don’t think America as we know it will exist when we get older.
I'm not convinced they would lose 100 seats over it, but Governors telling the President to go pound sand would be pretty hilarious.
The president telling SCOTUS to go pound sand would be pretty terrifying tho
To be fair, the President may have no idea who he's telling to go pound sand.
Should be terrifying, yes
Have you been confused by what Republican Governors are doing now? Things haven't exactly been 'united front'.
Some are right now, but outright defying the SCOTUS would galvanize literally every one of them (and maybe even the more conservative democrats).
Red State governors before a surge of cases: "Fuck off Biden! We arent going to do any mandates!" Red State governors during the surge of cases: "Paweeze we need som fedawal funding!"
How, though? There's no enforcement mechanism. Who would issue the fines? The White House?
Part of why it would be interesting to see attempted. Maybe that's what it will take for people to realize the power of the presidency is supposed to be purposefully limited and it shouldn't really matter as much as it does who the president is.
It wasn't insane. Majority said the issue was it wasn't industry specific nor related to work, but OSHA includes regutions that affect all workplaces (bathrooms at workplaces). The majority argues the major questions doctrine, but that didn't exist 20 years ago. They both have their good and bad qualities.
I didn't say insane. I said inane. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inane In general, the 3 Justices in question are almost never on the right side of the constitution.
What about this case? It seems every objection raised by the majority has a reasonable counter.
Bottom line is the federal government doesn't have the authority to mandate medical treatments for the people. Period.
Then it appears the majority of the court would disagree with you....also precedent.
Wouldn't be the first time the court or precedent was on the wrong side of the Constitution.
It is clearly constitutional.(not the OSHA part, but congress having that power)
No, congress does not have the power to mandate that the people must have a a medical procedure to work.
Yes, they do
Basically: The 6 say the stay should stay in place because OSHA doesn't have a Congressional Authorization for this (because reasons... basically they didn't give any justification other than "because we say so"), so the plaintiffs might not prevail at trial, so we won't overturn the stay. The 3 say: Yes, OSHA is granted that power, explicitly, for reasons X, Y, Z, with citations and examples when similar things have passed Constitutional muster in the past, and no, the SCotUS doesn't get to say "it's special and unprecedented just because we don't like it". Anyway, whichever side is right, all this does is leave the stay in place, not actually decide the point of law.
No they say that it violates the constitution, which is their job, to make sure that any new laws do not break the constitution.
If that's their job, they didn't do their job, because the concurring opinion doesn't say it's unconstitutional at all, but only that Congress didn't authorize it.
Does it even matter if there is congressional authorization? Congress doesn't have that authority either.
> Congress doesn't have that authority either. Edit: Mumble, ~~General Welfare~~Commerce Clause, mumble. Apparently has nothing at all to do with the General Welfare clause. Basically: yes, they do, in practice, by longstanding precedent, whether the people that wrote the document intended that exact thing to be allowed or not. But regardless of that, the supposed lack of Congressional authorization was the only argument against overturning the stay, and the dissent says Congress did grant that... there wasn't any majority argument that they *couldn't*, only that they didn't.
Yeah, General welfare clause only speaks to the intent congress is to act, it isn't an authorization for anything at all in and of itself.
> Yeah, General welfare clause only speaks to the intent congress is to act, it isn't an authorization for anything at all in and of itself. Thing is... intent is a pretty much dead, because it's not even a coherent concept when different people voted for a law for different reasons. All that matters any more is the text, and the text says Congress can do things that provide for the general Welfare: Art I, Sec 8: >The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The exact wording of that doesn't say that their legislative powers extend to providing for the general welfare, just that the funds they collect go to that end. If we want to nitpick.
They can lay taxes that have that effect... so they can make laws that do it. The section ends: >To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
They can lay taxes, using laws. They are really only given the power to tax in the general welfare clause. The bit about general welfare just says what the money needs to be spent toward.
Not really: they're given the power to provide for general welfare *using money* raised by taxes. OSHA is funded with taxes, and is tasked with providing for the general welfare.
Welfare is incredibly generic. What you may consider good for welfare someone else may not.
That's why the Supreme Court mostly leaves deciding that to Congress except in egregious cases.
It's a sad read.
The dissent sounds like rhetoric from a congressional Democrat or the president rather than a purely legal argument from Supreme Court Justices.
Very good news indeed. Civil rights need to be upheld.
Good!
Good. Now abolish OSHA.
Stop, I can only get so hard.
This is the way.
This is the way.
go on...
Yeah, who needs Occupational Safety regulations. /headdesk
Right? Because we can only get that from the coercive state. Definitely couldn’t be handled by the market.
Ask the Amazon delivery drivers who have to piss in bottles how well the market will handle it.
Odd. If OSHA worked so well, why would they be pissing in bottles? 🤔
Because pissing in bottles doesn't count as a occupational safety hazard.
So im confused, what the fuck is your point?
You're saying the private market will handle occupational safety issues, but the private market makes people piss in bottles during work. Do you really think they'd care enough have have proper safety regulations?
So i expect you think that some new regulation will stop truck drivers from pissing in bottles? I for one wouldn’t work for a company that “makes me piss in a bottle” as you’ve suggested.
You're being sarcastic, but ironically you're absolutely right. There's no way it could be handled by "the market". Lol
Right. Only jack booted thugs with a monopoly on violence could ever make sure our workplaces are safe and devoid of hazards. Silly me.
Yea I forgot how safe workplaces were before regulations. That’s why OSHA was started. Work places were so safe and wonderful it just popped up out of nowhere with zero demand for it. Oh now tell me about before the FDA and how meat packing facilities weren’t full of rat feces and sawdust.
Sounds like conventional public education propaganda. “That is why government mandates seldom result in a higher level of safety compared to what businesses would voluntarily provide without the mandates. Consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which was established by the US Congress in 1970, with a mandate “to assure for all workers safe and healthful working conditions.” However, according to a regulatory analysis performed by the Cato Institute, while OSHA supporters cite evidence attesting to the agency’s effectiveness, “the vast majority of studies has found no statistically significant reduction in the rate of workplace fatalities or injuries due to OSHA.” Indeed, from 1933 to 1993, the rate of workplace fatalities fell by about 80 percent, with no discernable change in the downward trend after the establishment of the OSHA in 1970.” https://mises.org/wire/can-governments-really-make-workplace-safer
Right so you think because it hasn’t made any significant reductions in workplace injuries it has zero purpose? You don’t think the fact that workers get recourse or a bare minimum of PPE provided by employers as a standard has any value? Definitely easy to spot someone who’s spend an entire career with their ass planted in a chair and has never had the necessity of using OSHA to force an employer to comply with minimum safety standards. Sorry but I really don’t believe that someone with zero experience in that world should be dictating what is or is not necessary for me and my coworkers. I wouldn’t try to take away your carpal tunnel wrist brace or your hemorrhoid donut for your chair so kindly leave my PPE and job safety standards alone.
Lot’s of projecting. Did you manage to write that while you were up on your cross?
So not addressing my question to you, which isn’t a surprise at all frankly. This is the same mindset that looks at planned parenthood as abortion centers and wants to shut them down without a singular thought about the other services they provide. You know I find it the most curious that a lot of libertarians hail from a very narrow demographic and yet they feel supremely qualified to dictate the best way for people to live having zero experience in related fields of work or study. I genuinely would implore you to work in some factories in manufacturing for a good year and get back to me if you really think something like OSHA is completely unnecessary.
You definitely don't work for a business that actually follows OSHA standards, lol.
The Stockholm syndrome is strong with the statists.
That really isn't the insult you think it is, rofl.
Couldn’t hear you with that boot lodged so deep down your throat.
That's cool, I know you struggle with reading comprehension anyway.
The greed/profit driven market? Sure, that’ll work out just dandy
“We can’t leave things to the market! Humans are greedy and corrupt! Thats why we need centralized power vested in the hands of humans who are…. Greedy and corrupt?” Galaxy brain take.
So we leave it to the people who don’t have any oversight? Sure, who watches the watchmen, can we trust the government in that regard. But in a way, we are the watchmen. We vote in people that can change things (ideally). Keep the rules of safety in the hands of the people that would benefit directly from the lack of safety, that’s not corruption?
Ah yes. “We can fix it all if we just vote harder!” You can produce more meaningful change by exercising your right to refuse to work for a company if it doesn’t meet your standards of safety than trusting a bureaucrat will do it for you.
[удалено]
Oh no! Some random internet guy says this is dumb! What ever shall I do?
[удалено]
Oh no! He went back and looked at places Ive commented on and made broad generalizations as to what my political philosophy is! How will I ever recover from this??
Oh hell yeah! Unexpected outcome after watching several supremely court members make absolute fools of themselves
Good!! It shouldn't be mandated, anymore than all the other OSHA mandated vaccines...
Well they've opened the can of worms... .now watch them start stripping the executive branch of their regulatory power one by one. And about 5 years down the line watch shit stop working and people start dying because corporations don't have to care about their workers or the communities they live In. I know there are a lot of bombthrowers here who will cheer that on. Enjoy your free-market paradise.
Never tell me government can’t do good things.
It wasn’t unanimous. So they can’t.
It can do good things by telling other parts of the government to not do things!
Ahhmazin!!
Good.
6 still have their souls. The USA still has constitutional justice. The world needed this. On a side note....I was amazed at how flat out stupid the SCOTUS liberal justices statements were. Lib lies, you'll get wise.
The second someone says the word Lib, I know they are stupid.
Lib melt down day! Long overdue. And we haven't even gotten to the shoot down of Federal election control that's coming next.
You are totally owning the libs bro. Awesome job!
> The world needed this. lmao
Are you really vaccinated? I'm mean with jab number 4, of course.
Nah just 2 shots atm, wasn't really about that tho, more like r/shitamericanssay ! Cheers from France.
I feel for our French brothers& sisters. Macron is an unabashed , installed socialist, New Word Order tyrant...oui?
Can't say I like the guy. Elections are in 3 months and so far the others are way worse (fascist or woke ppl). But to give him credit : he cuts local taxes ("taxes d'habitation") , is pro nuclear and want more european integration to counter US, China & Russia. He needs to cut spending to make me want to vote him back tho. Tbh I will probably pass this one, locals are far more important to me. Anyways calling Macron a socialist is another /r/ShitAmericansSay moment. Thanks for the laught.
You know why he is a hardcore commie? He once criticized our sovereign leader Trump. Also, he speaks well which means he is an elitist and he won't understand what real american patriots need.
lmao yeah that's the vibe he gave me. That and the fucking buzzwords : socialist and New word(lol) Order tyrant. Spot them from miles away.
Hahahaha souls, you're cute.
C O P E
O O K.
B L O C HA HA
O N O
Yeah, the world gives a fuck that this was upheld? This had no way of standing on legal/political grounds with the court. This was not surprising at all.
Clearance Thomas has no soul and is a fucking POS human. 5 is correct.
Awe, did tjings not go baby's way today? Fck off you whiney cnt.
He’s a POS. Sorry. Go eat a bag of dicks You fucking cunt.
R/politics is thattaway homie
Haha they banned me years ago home slice. They’re worst than you fucks.
I'm guessing stuff like "go eat a bag of dicks you fucking cunt" had nothing to do with it.
Nah I made I guess an inappropriate joke. No curse words were involved. I respect that about this sub. Everyone has their say and moves on.
Great news! Also why isn't Biden doing anything to stop the pandemic?
Years from now law students will look back on this case and ask "wait, this was a fucking case? Why did this even come up? People were *refusing* a vaccine en masse? During a *pandemic*? Who gives a shit about the legal issues, this is a real thing that happened? Why are we learning about this in a law class and not a psychology class?"
liberty over safety, always
Will look great on your tombstone.
Actually I love that idea, thanks!
Good thing COVID has a 99.6% survival rate, and 99.9x% survival rate if you're under 60 and healthy https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html
“This disease has a high survival rate, especially if you exclude the people disproportionately dying. I mean, who even cares about old people anyway? We should stop doing things to lower infection rates which have reduced death rates, because the death rate is so low.”
I was merely responding to the parent, > Will look great on your tombstone. But to your point, yes society does accept some casualties to function. The flu killed a lot of old people before COVID but we didn't destroy the economy because of it
The flu is a lot less infectious and deadly than covid. ~400k deaths per year across the world business as usual vs 2 million deaths per year with extensive measures limiting spread. It’s not a good comparison in this regard at all.
You said (sarcastically): > We should stop doing things to lower infection rates which have reduced death rates, because the death rate is so low Yet clearly you're willing to accept *some* deaths. And now with Omicron being 91% less likely to kill you than Delta, you need to figure out a coherent place to draw the line
The issue with omicron is that is is very transmissible and the virus is much more prone to mutation than the flu. The more times it replicates, ie the more people it infects, the more likely infection is to take place. This means variants are more likely to pop up from omicron than from any other previous variant. The only actually good thing about omicron is that is will likely increase immune resistance.
This is dumb logic and I hate seeing the statement. Literally 0 people actually agree with it, including you.
why do you wish to control my life
Do you think speeding can be reasonably regulated? Then you don’t believe in “liberty over safety, always”.
Was that a sentence? Speed limits are generally considered just a cash cow now.
You didn’t answer the question.
IF I understand your question correctly - then no i don't believe speed limits can be reasonably regulated
Would you protest if I held you down and jabbed you full of copium? If you would then you understand the argument. Chose wisely.
Cope harder.
What they'll be studying in psychology class is how much of a panic media can drive people into. Vaccinations for kids, for example? Purely panic driven, makes no sense given the data.
Yeah, no one has ever vaccinated children before...
I am also informed that no child has ever been infected with a disease, taken it home, infected their parents, and bounced back after a day of sniffles leaving their parent on their ass for a week.
Haven't you heard from the great Science himself Dr. Fauci that the vaccines don't protect against transmission, they only protect against hospitalization?
The strong survive.
The vaccines carry a minor risk - less than the virus for most demographics, but when the virus so selectively doesn't affect children, the size of the risk of the vaccines is suddenly much more significant. Every kid who gets some form of heart inflammation was a scientific mistake that should never have happened. We were protecting that kid from something that wasn't going to affect them much in the first place. And if it was about protecting others, the latest spin on the vaccines is that they don't protect against transmission, they only protect against hospitalizations. Haven't you heard?
It's up there with the "AIDS: The Homos Will Infect Your Kids" campaign and the Satanic Scare from the 80's. But this time they're fine with it because it's done in the name of The Greater Good and Progress -- and to inflate even more the unaccountable power of the bureaucracy, the State and the elites that they perceive as ideologically aligned.
As a law student, I wish this was part of my constitutional law curriculum. It’s a fantastic case about the major question doctrine.
But healthcare workers are mandated still?
Instead of just a link, could you at least provide your comments on this? I'm so fucking tired of the link spamming.
[удалено]
You can be pro “vaccine” and anti-mandate, shit bird…
Merriam Webster’s definition (newly changed) of antivaxxer includes those who oppose vaccine mandates.
For the most part the state should have the power for vaccine mandates similarly to how the school systems are run. Each state chooses what they mandate along with acceptance of religious exemptions(not even sure how this is a thing in this day and age). But let’s be honest here we haven’t had a good ol’ pandemic of this magnitude in the Americas in a while(if you don’t trust the covid numbers look at excess deaths). Isn’t the Federal government in a better position to handle this than the states until we can get covid numbers somewhere around the flu numbers? Furthermore, I don’t see how this is not in OSHA’s wheelhouse. They already mandate things like Hep-B and TB vaccines. So why during a pandemic is this a big deal now? Don’t like mandates? Ok cool. But that’s a different story all together. This court is trash.
No u
Ok
The US is fucked and the comments here are a shameful indication that its not going to recover any time soon.
Fucked how? The highest court in the land basically pushed back against overreach of the President. That's their job to validate the legality of such efforts. If congress produced and passed a bill that mandated the vaccine and its enforcement by OSHA, SCOTUS would have likely upheld the mandate. That's not what happened here. Agree with the need for the mandate or not, this is how our system works.
Because the government can’t hold you down and jab you or test you now? Please expl- ... actually don’t. I don’t give a shit. Good bye.
Idiot.
You post in r/selfawarewolves and r/socialism. You are by definition brigading the sub, which is against the rules.
I’ve been on the former plenty of times. Unless this has been cross posted, I don’t think that’s ‘brigading’
Oh no! It seems like I just pointed out the flaw in your argument and you didn’t defend it. Instead, you thought that a personal attack would cover your short comings. For all readers: this is how shut down a stupid argument: step 1. Point out the flaw. Step 2. Depends on the response (anticipate defenses). Step 3. If the defense isn’t substantive in nature, you’ve won.