Big story here from NBC News vis-à-vis GOP
conservative court has no regard for human life with this headline and words in
their ruling:
“Appeals court upholds order
freezing Biden vaccine rule for employers”
A three-judge panel (heavily conservative) rejected the DOJ arguments for lifting a previous order temporarily blocking the Biden rule.
A federal appeals court (November 12) upheld its previous order temporarily blocking President Biden's vaccine and testing mandate for large companies, rejecting DOJ’s request to lift the freeze.
A three-judge panel for the
Louisiana-based Fifth Circuit said in a 24-page ruling that the Biden administration's order their
summary “…exposes companies to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to
comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces.”
The court further wrote:
“On the dubious assumption that the mandate does pass constitutional muster,
which we need not decide today, it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own
terms.”
The judges said the court's earlier stay was reaffirmed
pending a full judicial review. The *vaccine rule was announced by the OSHA earlier
this month and scheduled to take effect January 4. It requires businesses with
100 or more employees to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or
require workers who aren't vaccinated to wear masks and show negative COVID-19
test results at least once a week. Employers can face fines for not complying.
The rule summary (from the
total 490 pages in .pdf format:
Summary: The OSHA is issuing an emergency temporary standard
(ETS) to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers (100 or more
employees) from the risk of contracting COVID-19 by strongly encouraging vaccination.
Covered employers must: Develop, implement, and enforce a
mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead
adopt a policy requiring employees to either get vaccinated or elect to undergo
regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of
vaccination.
A group of companies and individuals, including churches,
restaurants and grocers, filed the suit shortly the rule was announced, seeking
a permanent injunction. They were joined by LA, MS, SC, TX, and UT.
The groups argued that OSHA usurped its authority by issuing
the sweeping mandate, and that COVID-19 is not a workplace hazard.
They argued the rule makes it harder to maintain enough
workers in a tight labor market.
The judges sided with those arguments.
My 2 Cents: I am NOT a lawyer and don't pretend to be one, either, but I strongly believe this is a very poor court opinion.
Also, allowing kids to hold up anti-vaxx signs and standing way up in the air
like that one above to me is child abuse.
It also seems this court
forgot the 1905 USSC ruling that said in essence: Mandates for vaccinations are
necessary to stop a pandemic and preserve life. That case was Jacobson
vs. Massachusetts and the USSC ruled against Jacobson (7-2).
Facts of that case: A Massachusetts law allowed cities to
require residents to be vaccinated against the smallpox pandemic.
Cambridge, MA adopted such
an ordinance, with some exceptions. Plaintiff Jacobson, a Swedish pastor, refused
to comply with the requirement and was fined five dollars saying it violated
his 14th Amendment rights.
The Question before the Court: Did the mandatory vaccination
law violate Jacobson's Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty? The high-court
said “No” it did not.
Final Conclusion: The Court held that the law was a legitimate
exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of
its citizens.
Local boards of health
determined when mandatory vaccinations were needed, thus making the requirement
neither unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed.
In short the court
established the “reasonableness test” in such matters vis-à-vis protecting life
during a pandemic like that one and the current one today.
Why didn't that precedence apply here, I wonder?
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment