Media Observers: Court Appears Poised to Strike Down Brandon's Vaccine Mandates on Large Employers, But Might Uphold His Mandate on Health Care Workers

Two different mandates were the subject of lawsuits that were heard in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today.

Hopefully both will be struck down, but one seems more likely than the other.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Friday appeared ready to reject one of President Joe Biden's most aggressive attempts so far to combat the spread of Covid-19 -- a vaccine or testing requirement aimed at large businesses.

But in a separate challenge, some justices seemed more open to a vaccine mandate aimed at certain health care workers.

The court heard arguments for almost four hours as the number of infections is soaring, and 40 million adults in the US are still declining to get vaccinated.

The three liberal justices on the court expressed clear approval for the administration's rules in both areas.

You don't say. The three liberals in lockstep for every single liberal political position? You don't say. You don't say. You don't say.

Wow they must really be reading "the law" to come to the exact same political position on every single different legal issue every single time, huh?

Two sets of rules, issued in November, were the subject of Friday's cases. The first would impact some 80 million individuals and requires large employers to mandate that their employees either get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, suggested that the Biden administration's rule, issued under an agency's emergency powers, was too broad.

Barrett asked whether a "more targeted" regulation aimed at industries with a higher risk of transmission, would be more likely to pass legal muster.

Along the same lines, Thomas suggested that younger, unvaccinated workers might have fewer health risks and should not be subject to the same rules as older workers. He also said that states could be better suited than the federal government to require vaccines or testing under their police powers.

Those are some very small-bore objections. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and, shockingly, Roberts had more robust objections.

Two of President Donald Trump's nominees, Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, questioned whether a federal agency could issue a regulation with such vast economic and political significance without the clear authorization of Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to agree on that point by wondering if the government had responded on an "agency by agency" basis, in order to get around the fact that Congress and some states had failed to act.

The arguments for imposing the mandate on health care workers weren't legal, they were simply Karen: People gonna die 'less you do this.

The arguments against: You have no legal power to do this.

Lawyers for two different sets of states counter that CMS acted outside the scope of its authority when issuing the mandate because Congress never specifically authorized the agency to issue such a broad rule. They also charge the agency with bypassing normal procedures which would have allowed stake holders to weigh in on the mandate.

...

Separately, Elizabeth Murrill, Louisiana's solicitor general, representing a different set of states, said that the mandate is also unconstitutional. She argued that under the Spending Clause of the Constitution Congress' power to legislate "rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms" of a contract.

In the case at hand, she said, the facilities that accept the federal funds had no advance notice of the mandate. She also argued that Congress can't simply delegate the authority to a federal agency to require vaccines for over 10 million health care workers without a clear statement of intent.

Jordan Boyd at The Federalist said at least four Justices seemed "skeptical" of the president's unilateral power to order this without Congress's authority:

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch all seemed skeptical of the vaccine mandate on the grounds that the federal government was extending its reach into state issues. In his questioning, Gorsuch emphasized that the mandate seems less effective as a health and safety protocol and is more of an issue of control.

"Could CMS also implement regulations about exercise regimes?" Gorsuch asked, wondering if "substances that must be ingested by hospital employees" could be implemented "in the name of health and safety?"

The leftwing partisans invented their own facts:

During the arguments, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Stephen Breyer, and the counsel arguing in favor of the mandate continued to spew misinformation about COVID-19 and the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Kagan repeatedly lied that vaccinated workers couldn't transmit the virus despite numerous admissions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the jab doesn't stop viral spread and data showing a significant number of breakthrough COVID cases.

She was the shepherd of Obamacare.

The "Wise Latina" proved her worthiness to be on the court, by making up nonsense stupidlies that only a Wise Latina could make up.

Phil Kerpen @kerpen

This is just absolutely astonishing. "100,000 children in serious condition," per Sotomayor. Where do these people obtain their misinformation? The current national pediatric COVID census per HHS is 3,342. Many/most incidental.

See, a White Man just couldn't make up outlandish lies like that.

Behold, the wonders of Diversity.

posted by Ace at 05:34 PM

| Access Comments