T O P
hornyfriedrice

> Twenty years ago, Scalia, in a unanimous opinion for the court, "rejected an argument pretty similar to" the one the six current conservatives embraced last week in essentially striking down the vaccine-or-test OSHA mandate. What was this opinion of the court?


Meeeep1234567890

Most likely made up just like Sotomayor’s numbers of children hospitalized due to Covid.


LongjumpingBadger

I just don't get it with Gorsuch. He's the one who wrote all about how important we are civil to each other despite our political disagreements. Yet here he is being decidedly uncivil. I would be curious what his reasons are to decline to wear a mask after being asked for the sake of a vulnerable colleague. Had previously struck me as a nice enough guy


brucejoel99

And especially when it was previously reported that he & Justice Sotomayor had apparently become good friends, no less. They even worked on Justice O'Connor's iCivics together.


initialgold

It’s hypocrisy. You can be mad/upset/disappointed. Or happy he’s owning libs. But don’t be confused.


bac5665

When he says we should be civil, he means be civil to him. The "civility" kick the conservatives have been on is a tool to shame liberals. They have never intended it to constrain their ability to be assholes.


Mort_DeRire

That's people like his MO. It's not really "why don't we all be civil to each other", it's "why don't you be civil to me no matter what I do? I do not want consequences for my actions." He doesn't want all sides to show empathy; he wants the other side to tolerate him and still think he's a good guy because he won't make a tiny sacrifice and demonstrate some empathy.


[deleted]

What a crock of made up BS Main Street media talking points.


NobleWombat

Truth struck a nerve, didn't it?


PanOmnist

It’s like he’s a long time political operative and ideological hack or something.


malicious_pillow

> I just don't get it with Gorsuch. He's a reasonably good liar, and he fooled you. Not any more complicated than that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LongjumpingBadger

You're right, medical interventions always work 100% of the time at preventing or relieving all complications with 0 risk or they are completely useless, there is no in between. So dumb of the rest of us for not understanding


asdfdasf98890_9897

Of course there's an in-between. If the vaccine doesn't protect her, she is still protected because her peer group is vaccinated, which stops them from spreading it to her. Isn't that how the whole thing is supposed to work?


beets_or_turnips

If you've been keeping up, you should know that sadly the vaccine doesn't 100% prevent transmission, especially for Omicron. However it does do a good job of reducing the severity of symptoms and risk of long-term injury in people if they do have a breakthrough infection. For that reason, and because an infected person can be contagious for several days before they become symptomatic, it's still a good idea to wear a mask in social situations even for the vaccinated.


[deleted]

[удалено]


asdfdasf98890_9897

She can get her antibodies tested (trivial) and will know whether the vaccine produced the desired immune response in her body. That would be too easy I guess though. AFAIK she never corrected her dramatic misinformation overstating the number of sick/dead children, either, even after being supplied with the correct data. Completely unprofessional.


[deleted]

[удалено]


asdfdasf98890_9897

Are you suggesting that her statement on the number of sick and dead children is accurate? Because it is not, by many orders of magnitude. She should at least make her decisions based on accurate information.


[deleted]

I love how you keep changing the subject


Rockytop85

He has also jumped to the conclusion that other justices are behaving in bad faith in at least one dissent. I can’t remember the case but I remember Roberts responded to it and it made him seem like a crybaby. May have been the Obamacare case, come to think of it.


wx_rebel

Regardless as to what one may think of his rulings, I think we can all agree that Gorusch has been more confrontational than his peers from the beginning, this mask thing is just one more example of that.


hornyfriedrice

confrontational is a nice word to describe that


marzenmangler

Asshole is better


Faolin_

Selfish prick is the best.


[deleted]

All scientific evidence agrees with Gorsuch that wearing a mask when you're fully vaccinated is entirely pointless. If Sotomayor disagrees, she's unfit for her position.


wx_rebel

That was true prior to Delta. It's not the case anymore.


bac5665

Disgraceful behavior by Gorsuch, but that's not surprising in the least. And Roberts is continuing to be Chief in name only.


Faolin_

Right? It is such a shitty move and complete disrespect for his fellow Justices. Whatever you may believe, if a fellow justice feels the need to not come to court because of your choice of not wearing a mask, and you continue to make that choice, you are a shitty person. Also, save the pseudo-science that some in this sub love to engage in. Vaccines do not prevent COVID. They make it harder to spread, sure, but they do not prevent. If a co-worker you sit next to has a health condition, and you cannot bother to wear a mask for their safety, you deserve no respect whatsoever.


bac5665

And it's worrying not just because he's an asshole, but because it speaks of a callousness of character that of course will color his jurisprudence. How could it not? And that's frightening.


jambarama

I think that's been visible since long before he was a supreme Court justice. I think in the light most favorable to him, he's interested in the correct legal decision, damn the consequences.


bac5665

>I think that's been visible since long before he was a supreme Court justice. I think in the light most favorable to him, he's interested in the correct legal decision, damn the consequences. He got the law wrong here, in SB8, in basically every controversial case he's ruled on. *Bostock* is the only time he's gotten it right in a contentious case.


merrickgarland2016

But in the *Bostock* case, Neil Gorsuch made a point of interjecting and promoting his preferred coming loophole--religious belief.


bac5665

Yes he did, and as a queer atheist, I took notice.


MuddyFilter

>he's interested in the correct legal decision, damn the consequences. As any good Supreme Court Justice should be


hornyfriedrice

Vaccines do prevent spread of Covid. Although that number is low and thus warrants additional safety net.


jambarama

Reduce or prevent transmission? Prevent suggests complete inability to transmit. Which is not the case.


hornyfriedrice

yeah I mean reduce. a good article about that here - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y I am not sure about any studies done with omicron though. the one I mentioned was done with delta


beets_or_turnips

Traffic lights prevent car accidents too, and yet somehow car accidents still happen! 🤔


jambarama

Then maybe traffic lights reduce car accidents? I mean this is all semantics on weather prevent means 100% prevent or whether it means reduced the likelihood of, so it doesn't really matter. Everyone agrees vaccines reduce transmissibility and severity.


beets_or_turnips

Thank goodness, we agree. Well done, all of us. Yeah a lot of online disagreements come down to semantics which makes sense given the medium but it's also a stupid expense of time and stress.


Faolin_

As you mentioned below, it reduces. Not prevent. I can see why someone with a health condition is extra precautious with someone not wearing a mask, even if they are vaccinated.


hornyfriedrice

yeah they do not prevent but reduce the spread.


LudwigBastiat

They were much more effective against the previous variants. Doesn't seem like they do much for omicron. Every person in my office has had it over the past month or two and almost everyone is vaccinated, about half have said they got the booster too.


[deleted]

The mask is irrelevant to her safety, as even Leana Wen has now acknowledged. This is just another example of her not knowing anything about COVID.


Faolin_

Lmfao. Yes. Something that helps protect you from getting the virus is irrelevant. Fuck off lmao. Also, Leana was talking about cloth masks. At least be accurate in your statements. It's annoying when you need to fact check someone on something as basic as their OWN cite.


xudoxis

Of course they aren't happy campers. They're catching shit from all sides. Democrats rightfully question their motivations where they are so blatantly partisan in their decision making process. Republicans castigate them for not toeing the party lie. Heck DeSantis is on record saying that he'll ignore their vax ruling in Florida. An obvious foreshadowing for a man who has aspirations of being president. Their choice is to give up their current partisan streak and make democrats happy(lol) or give up all pretense of non-partisanship and make republicans happy.


TNPerson

Why not just continue as they have been and make everyone unhappy?


xudoxis

The republican party platform for 2020 already included a line calling for removal of every justice who voted for marriage equality. If they continue as they have they'll eventually(sooner rather than later) be railroaded by republicans who demand they act as nothing more than a Premium Senate^tm that falls in line for votes. And if they refuse they'll catch a Jackson 2.0 as a best case scenario but more likely will just face regular impeachments("iMpEaChMeNt iS a PoLiTiCaL PrOcEsS")


Mastermind_pesky

> Their choice is to give up their current partisan streak and make democrats happy(lol) or give up all pretense of non-partisanship and make republicans happy. The idea that the court should be weighing the 'happiness' of either of the other branches is disheartening and pathetic to me (not a comment on your opinion, which I tend to agree with, so much as a comment on where it seems the court stands).


xudoxis

It speaks to the underlying absurdity of the US's judicial mythos. That the academy of legal scholarship can exist apolitically next to things the academies of math and science when in reality legal scholarship is inherently political like the humanities.


Faolin_

Exactly! I always maintained Judges, and the Court, do not attain nirvana once they get their commission. It’s ridiculous. Judiciary is a branch of government. It’s inherently political. Shit, any university professor will tell you even math and science academia is political. Grant writing, etc.


NobleWombat

It can still be insulated from direct influence by the political branches of government, it's just not perfect insulation. It's kind of like the discussion above about the role of vaccines.. they don't absolutely prevent infection, but they greatly mitigate transmission. The problem with the modern court is that: - Hyper-polarization of our two party system is now transmitted through the highly politicized appointment process, whereby an elected political office (POTUS) appoints justices directly to the highest court. - the court is far too small, such that the impact of any individual retirement or appointment is highly significant. To cure this vector of politicization would require something like a much larger court where individual appointments would have a diluted impact (among other similar reforms).


[deleted]

Totenberg is not a reliable narrator, so anything she says should be held in skepticism until a more reliable source confirms it.


jsudarskyvt

Call it what you will. SCOTUS in its current form cannot render a legitimate decision as we saw with the mandate they refused to uphold. Since when is it their job to set public health policy? Citizens will die because of their decision.


wx_rebel

I think you should review their ruling again. It's definitely not the Supreme Court's job to define health policy, nor is it the executive branches. It is Congress' job and one they deferred. That being said, sadly your last comment is true, and I wish they had found a way to make it work.


Duck_Potato

They didn’t defer, though. They did the opposite by striking down regulations promulgated under a very broadly written statute. They ignored the statute’s plain text and completely disregarded the 1971 Congress’ intent. Another example of this Court seizing power for itself while pretending to be a prudent, neutral body.


YouProbablyDissagree

Since when is it the executives job? It’s the legislatures job.


bac5665

And they did that job giving clear authority to OSHA. It's absolutely not ambiguous that OSHA was property delegated the authority. SCOTUS ignored the law here. It's very troubling.


YouProbablyDissagree

Or….and hear me out here….they actually just weren’t given the authority. Congress is free to give it to them now if it wants though.


jsudarskyvt

It's OSHA's job. The agency that has expertise in safeguarding Americas workplaces.


YouProbablyDissagree

No it’s OSHA’s job within the confines of the authority they were given. If they weren’t given the authority then they can’t do it. They weren’t given the authority.


bac5665

They were given the authority. It's right there in the statute.


YouProbablyDissagree

Where in the statute does it give them the authority to mandate a vaccine?


bac5665

You'd know if you read the opinion and the dissent. It's discussed by both.


YouProbablyDissagree

Did both. I know where the liberal justices were CLAIMING it was found. I disagree with them.


bac5665

You disagree that a statute giving emergency powers to OSHA to regulate novel threats in the workplace gives OSHA the authority to regulate the novel threat of the COVID pandemic? I'm sorry, but that's just not credible.


YouProbablyDissagree

Well considering the Supreme Court agrees with me I’m sorry but I think you are the one who isn’t credible.


ResIpsaBroquitur

> the authority to regulate the novel threat of the COVID pandemic? The ETS came out about two years after the pandemic started, and a year and a half after it came to the US. Testing — the less controversial but more costly part of the ETS — had been widely available for well over a year. Even the vaccine had been available to all adults for about six months by the time the ETS came out. There was nothing novel about the coronavirus by fall 2021; the notion that the ETS was a reaction to a novel emergency is absurd.


jsudarskyvt

What makes you think OSHA was not given the authority to make health and safety rules in a workplace? That is exactly their purpose and the authority to do that is implicit. It doesn't have to be spelled out for lawyers. America is on the path to a million deaths. Mandates are very effective. SCOTUS has taken that power away and more people will die because of it. The court is proving their illegitimacy in their partisan rulings.


YouProbablyDissagree

They are in charge of occupational hazards. Covid is not an occupational hazard. It is a hazard that is inherent from just being in society. Especially with omnicron it seems very unlikely that anyone is going to not get Covid. Also they dont have a blank check to do whatever they want just because they label it as health policy. Please name a time when the Supreme Court wasn’t partisan. If you think the Supreme Court is only legitimate when they agree with your political leanings then that’s more of a you issue.


jsudarskyvt

It's a bit selective to say that covid doesn't apply to workplaces because it is "just being in society". Right out of OSHA's charter their purpose is to provide "safe and healthful working conditions for workers ". Nothing says a deadly disease is not considered anathema to healthful working conditions. As for it being acceptable that SCOTUS is partisan now because they have been partisan in the past lacks import. SCOTUS is supposed to decide based on constitutional rights which are NOT supposed to be partisan.


YouProbablyDissagree

I agree it SHOULD be non partisan but when people are acting as if it’s all of a sudden partisan when before it wasn’t it’s pretty clear that they just want it to follow their preferred politics. I dont have much empathy for those people.


jsudarskyvt

Some people just want them to uphold the constitution.


YouProbablyDissagree

I find that hard to believe when they were silent the past few decades while lots of liberal rulings were being passed down. I’m pro choice but if you think for v wade for example was anything but activist judges forcing their views on the country then ive got a bridge to sell you.


Korwinga

I guess OSHA can't make me wear a hard hat anymore then, since I could have something hit my head at any time.


YouProbablyDissagree

If there was basically a 100% chance that an equal size bolder was going to drop on your head whether at work or not at work then yea i think it is questionable whether OSHA could mandate a hardhat. Of course we dont have bolders falling out of the sky so i dont really see the comparison very useful. Nice try though.


bac5665

Of course COVID is an occupational hazard. Transmission is most likely in the workplace, since everywhere else I go I can take precautions, but at the work place, I go where my employer tells me to go. If something can't be an occupational hazard just because it can happen anywhere, then OSHA can't regulate anything. I fall in a vat of molten lead at home, after all. No, if COVID isn't occupational, then nothing is. Sorry, but it's just not a credible argument.


YouProbablyDissagree

There’s a difference between “it can happen anywhere” and “it is likely to happen anywhere”.


bac5665

Yes. That's why it's much more likely to happen in a space where I'm with coworkers all day, rather than in my home, where I can tightly curate who I come into contact with. Please, keep spouting OANN talking points that any 1L could debunk.


YouProbablyDissagree

lmao sorry im not a trumptard so try again. It may shock you to find out that people can disagree with you without being manipulated by misinformation and rightwing propaganda. Of course that would take a bit of self awareness which you clearly lack.


hesaherr

Falling down is a hazard inherent in society. So is messing up your back lifting something that you shouldn't have. So those clearly aren't occupational hazards /s. It's a stupid line-drawing game and it's easy to draw the line in a way that benefits your political party (which happens with 5 theocrats on the bench) without any basis in statute or reality.


YouProbablyDissagree

Theocrats? Wow okay lol you’re just crazy. My bad.


hesaherr

Yeah, because 5 justices are definitely making decisions based upon legal reasoning and not their religious beliefs... Must be a nice rock that you're living under.


YouProbablyDissagree

what does the vaccine mandate have to do with religion?


capacitorisempty

Non-essential workers have low probability of severe covid disease (RR1.6). Machine operators have higher risks of severe disease (RR2.4). Nurses and Doctors have higher risks (RR7.4). The risk is specific to the occupation, the definition of an occupational hazard. Risk Ratios (RR) sourced from UKBiobank paper.


YouProbablyDissagree

ThT was before omnicron


capacitorisempty

Sure. Use common sense and reflect on the courts opinion which is germane. Occupational risk differences isn’t in doubt before the court. Transmission differences, and resultant severe disease differences, per occupation remain with new variants. The court’s concern was the regulation was a “blunt force regulation” that didn’t “reflect the distinctions based on industry or risk of exposure to COVID-19”. The court says COVID-19 is not an occupational hazard in most workplaces. They state OSHA has authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID-19 where there are specific risks vs. broad public health concerns. OSHA must reissue COVID-19 related rules specific to occupational risks workers face as they should have from the start as that is the mandate they received from congress decades ago. Lawful regulations will undoubtably cover fewer than 100 million workers as there are more occupations than landscapers working exclusively outside who don’t need protection. There are also occupations where protections are within the scope of the act.


PanOmnist

“Won’t be because they hate each other” …yet.