Supreme Court Halts Vaccine Mandate That Covered 80M Workers
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
"The vote in the employer mandate case was 6 to 3, with liberal justices in dissent. The vote in the health care case was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joining the liberal justices to form a majority. ... the court’s conservative majority seemed doubtful that the administration had congressional authorization to impose the requirements."
Does anyone have a guess as to how a vote by Congress to authorize OSHA vaccine mandates would fair? Would it be one of the purely partisan issues, like Build Back Better and the voting legislation? I suppose that the fact that it hasn't already passed is evidence that it wouldn't.
My guess is that by the time anything got through, we'll be past the omicron surge and Americans will be talking inflation and elections.
We might also hear some musing about the conservative supreme court and needing to expand it to change the majority.
If I understand correctly, S.J. Res 29 [1] is a senate resolution that answers this exact question. Looking at the voting result [2], 2 Democrats voted YAY (ie expressing disapproval of the mandate) along with some Independents and all Republicans. This leads me to believe that a similar rule would not pass the Senate. Although there could be more to the story, eg I don't know the motivation that the two Democrats had when voting YAY, especially given at least to my understanding this kind of vote is more symbolic than anything.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-re... [2] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
It's almost as if the media thinks there's not enough partisanship in the legislative and executive branches, so they need to inject a red vs. blue narrative to the doings of the Supreme Court.
Doesn't SCOTUS typically decide cases more based on technical legal criteria than partisan ideology?
>The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases.
You've fallen prey to media outrage mongering. If you go look at decisions for yourself instead just the ones the media tells you about, you'll find that it is also common for the "conservative" and "liberal" justices to switch sides.
It's remarkable that this was a 5-4 decision against the conservative justices. The vast majority of 5-4 decisions will be a single conservative justice siding with the liberal justices.
When a case is nonpartisan, they will have a lot of unanimity, and a small number of dissents from it. But when the case is partisan -- and a fair number of them are -- they will fall along partisan lines. There just aren't that many cases of serious but non-partisan disagreement.
But I guess it could go either way, depending on one's preconceptions.
More youthful companies will punt but check back in when Covid-35 or -40 hits.
I wonder if Health Insurance providers will make it mandatory or have different rates based on vax.
Where I work we have a mandate and it's like 98% compliance. A few have opted to go 100% remote so they can avoid the vaccine but practically nobody quit over this.