Does the decision by the SCOTUS would also have implications on the ability of governors to shut their states down like, for instance, Newsome did? Does anyone know?
From Gorsuch’s concurrence:
I start with this Court’s precedents. There is no question that state and local authorities possess considerable power to regulate public health. They enjoy the “general power of governing,” including all sovereign powers envisioned by the Constitution and not specifically vested in the federal government. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519, 536 (2012) (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. And in fact, States have pur- sued a variety of measures in response to the current pan- demic. E.g., Cal. Dept. of Public Health, All Facilities Let- ter 21–28.1 (Dec. 27, 2021); see also N. Y. Pub. Health Law Ann. § 2164 (West 2021).
The federal government’s powers, however, are not gen- eral but limited and divided. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). Not only must the federal gov- ernment properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other. It must also act consistently with the Constitution’s separa- tion of powers. And when it comes to that obligation, this Court has established at least one firm rule: “We expect Congress to speak clearly” if it wishes to assign to an exec- utive agency decisions “of vast economic and political sig- nificance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per cu- riam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). We sometimes call this the major questions doctrine. Gundy v. United States, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (GORSUCH, J., dis- senting) (slip op., at 20).
OSHA’s mandate fails that doctrine’s test
national concern with national measures being taken...e.g. vaccine production and distribution to all states...the health of the nation, both physically and economically, is being compromised by the intransigence of tens of millions of citizens...therefore, IMO it is incumbent on the federal government to exercise its emergency powers to remedy that problem with mandates for vaccination...a remedy that medical science contends will resolve the problem...plus, the mandates will only be temporary for this particular crisis.
Aside from the pedantic legalese, isn't the appropriate decision by our SCOTUS to help ensure the health, safety and economic well-being of the entire nation?...and not just one segment of it (HC workers)?
If Congress were to pass a law mandating a vax (or vax or test), it would be a closer call. They arguably have the power to do this under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which has be construed broadly since the 1930s. (The closest we have come to that is the Senate passing a resolution opposing it.)
The Supreme Court should only be interpreting law, not creating it.
did not have the "Federalist Society Seal of Approval" had been recently seated and joined with them, would you feel you were on solid ground in averring that they were "Creating" law?...kind of a rhetorical question, I admit, but man it looks to me like those three are anything but independent thinkers, and when you add the other three Justices who also have Federalist Society ties, it doesn't bode well for a country that has consistently voiced its "Plurality" for more Liberal Presidents...way too much conservative dogma in one (critical) place...IMHO...talk about "Stacking".
(no message)
I listened to the oral arguments too.
Then again, it has been a big part of my job the past few months.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Can only buy so many votes.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Governors should check with Justice Gorsuch whether to close state offices during a snow blizzard?
Governors should check with Justice Coney Thomas whether to order evacuations with approaching CAT IV hurricane?
Governors should check with Justice Coney Barrett Gorsuch whether a toxic spill on the highway requires State Troopers to close the road?
(no message)
Ruling on a directive that impacts over 100 million Americans is micromanaging? Sure, sure.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
You ain't pro life, hypocrite!
(no message)
Point of order.
(no message)