Split Decision: Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Against Biden's OSHA Vaccine Mandate;
Fake "Conservative" Justices Uphold Mandate for Health Care Workers Mandate

Breaking, via @Techo_Fog.

The Court is deciding whether to uphold or strike down -- "stay" -- a temporary injunction. The injunction is currently suspending enforcement of the OSHA mandate.

A bit confusing there -- the government wants to "stay," or suspend, the injunction. The injunction itself is staying, or suspending, enforcement of the law. So the government wants to enjoin the injunction.

The Supreme Court says "Nah, we'll leave the injunction in place." Meaning, the mandate cannot be enforced. The courts will have a full trial on the lawfulness of the mandates later, but for now, they're assuming it will be found to be unlawful and are suspending its enforcement.

An injunction is a remedy sought before an actual trial when there is claimed to be irreparable harm that will be suffered before the trial can be held. Injunctions are decided on quick-and-dirty hearings, with lower evidentiary standards and expedited procedures.

To win on a motion for an injunction, you have to show, most importantly, that you'll suffer an irreversible harm that cannot be later remedied at a full trial unless you are granted the injunction (for a contrary example: losing money isn't an irreparable harm, as you can always be compensated at any point in time, but being forced to take a vaccine you don't want would be a bell that can't be unrung), and that you're likely to succeed on the merits when the full trial is held and concluded.

The lower courts found that the plaintiffs would in fact prevail on the merits.

The Supreme Court now agrees.

Specifically, they're likely to prevail on their argument that the mandate is "unlawful."

They find that the Brandon Administration's contention that Congress silently authorized OSHA to have the power to enforce a national vaccine policy is stupid. The Supreme Court will allow the argument that Congress perhaps intended, without explicitly stating, some minor provisions or limitations in the stated law.

But for major parts of the law, they expect that Congress will speak clearly. And audibly. And not "silently" and through implication and emanations and penumbras.

This isn't a guarantee the Court (or the lower courts, first) will rule the mandate unconstitutional when they get around to ruling on the merits -- they could all be dazzled by new arguments later -- but that's the way to bet.

Still no word on the mandate on health care workers.

Update: Even though it is now a well-known fact that hospitals are calling in covid-infected doctors and nurses into work, and therefore there can be no rational basis for depriving anyone of their right to refuse a vaccine, the "conservative" justices picked for us by the neoliberal Federalist Society did what they always do and sided with the liberals.

Because they are liberals.

Kurt Schlichter @KurtSchlichter

No more Federalist Society judges. I want conservatives who will vote conservative every single time.

Update: Ron Klain retweeted Stephanie Ruhle commenting on the fact that Biden's OSHA mandate was a "work-around," meaning, a way to get around the pesky little fact that Biden was doing something that Congress had not authorized and therefore was without legitimacy and was an illegal presidential action.

in their reasoning for upholding the injunction against the OSHA mandate.

Split Decision: Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Against Biden's OSHA Vaccine Mandate;
Fake "Conservative" Justices Uphold Mandate for Health Care Workers Mandate &bodytext= Breaking, via @Techo_Fog. The Court is deciding whether to uphold or strike down -- "stay" -- a temporary injunction. The injunction is currently suspending enforcement of the OSHA mandate. A bit confusing there -- the government wants to "stay,"...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 02:57 PM

| Access Comments