5 ms·

A better article: https://archive.ph/Cyixf#selection-595.0-595.247 https://archive.ph/Cyixf#selection-595.0-595.247 "The vote in the employer mandate case was

A better article: https://archive.ph/Cyixf#selection-595.0-595.247 https://archive.ph/Cyixf#selection-595.0-595.247 "The vote in the employer mandate case was 6 to 3, with liberal justices in dissent. The vote in the health care case was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joining the liberal justices to form a majority. ... the court’s conservative majority seemed doubtful that the administration had congressional authorization to impose the requirements." Does anyone have a guess as to how a vote by Congress to authorize OSHA vaccine mandates would fair? Would it be one of the purely partisan issues, like Build Back Better and the voting legislation? I suppose that the fact that it hasn't already passed is evidence that it wouldn't.

verdverm 5y ago
They've certainly passed significant legislation towards covid, yet have not included vaccine mandates in any. My guess is that by the time anything got through, we'll be past the omicron surge and Americans will be talking inflation and elections. We might also hear some musing about the conservative supreme court and needing to expand it to change the majority.
MissionInfl 5y ago
>Does anyone have a guess as to how a vote by Congress to authorize OSHA vaccine mandates would fair? If I understand correctly, S.J. Res 29 [1] is a senate resolution that answers this exact question. Looking at the voting result [2], 2 Democrats voted YAY (ie expressing disapproval of the mandate) along with some Independents and all Republicans. This leads me to believe that a similar rule would not pass the Senate. Although there could be more to the story, eg I don't know the motivation that the two Democrats had when voting YAY, especially given at least to my understanding this kind of vote is more symbolic than anything. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/29 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-re... [2] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00489.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
- jcadam 5y ago
  Not necessarily purely symbolic. It could have been done as a signal to the court that the mandate would not have had congressional approval.
  - MissionInfl 5y ago
    Ah, surprised that I didn't think of it that way, considering the way that I learned about this Senate resolution was by reading the majority decision: "In fact, the most noteworthy action concerning the vaccine mandate by either House of Congress has been a majority vote of the Senate disapproving the regulation on December 8, 2021. S. J. Res. 29, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021)." [1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
csense 5y ago
Why does so much news coverage insist on dividing the Court into "liberal" and "conservative" justices? It's almost as if the media thinks there's not enough partisanship in the legislative and executive branches, so they need to inject a red vs. blue narrative to the doings of the Supreme Court. Doesn't SCOTUS typically decide cases more based on technical legal criteria than partisan ideology?
- krapp 5y ago
  Justices are specifically chosen for their liberal or conservative ideology and perceived loyalty in hopes of ruling in favor of the party in power's long term agenda. Republicans appoint conservative justices, Democrats appoint liberal judges. Both assume quid pro quo. Ignoring this fact is simply naive.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    From a 2018 Washington Post article >The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases. You've fallen prey to media outrage mongering. If you go look at decisions for yourself instead just the ones the media tells you about, you'll find that it is also common for the "conservative" and "liberal" justices to switch sides.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      Most cases which come to the supreme court aren't particularly partisan. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to clarify what the law is, and many ambiguities do not fall along a conservative-liberal axis. Someone can be a conservative and still agree with liberals on many things, and vice versa; indeed that's how intelligent people with well developed opinions ought to behave. Even on partisan issues, there is still typically an element of degree - an extreme conservative may see something as reasonable while a moderate conservative may not. That conservative and liberal justices in some cases vote with each other is in absolutely no way evidence that they are not conservative or liberal.

verdverm 5y ago

They've certainly passed significant legislation towards covid, yet have not included vaccine mandates in any. My guess is that by the time anything got through, we'll be past the omicron surge and Americans will be talking inflation and elections. We might also hear some musing about the conservative supreme court and needing to expand it to change the majority.

MissionInfl 5y ago

>Does anyone have a guess as to how a vote by Congress to authorize OSHA vaccine mandates would fair? If I understand correctly, S.J. Res 29 [1] is a senate resolution that answers this exact question. Looking at the voting result [2], 2 Democrats voted YAY (ie expressing disapproval of the mandate) along with some Independents and all Republicans. This leads me to believe that a similar rule would not pass the Senate. Although there could be more to the story, eg I don't know the motivation that the two Democrats had when voting YAY, especially given at least to my understanding this kind of vote is more symbolic than anything. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/29 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-re... [2] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00489.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

jcadam 5y ago
Not necessarily purely symbolic. It could have been done as a signal to the court that the mandate would not have had congressional approval.
- MissionInfl 5y ago
  Ah, surprised that I didn't think of it that way, considering the way that I learned about this Senate resolution was by reading the majority decision: "In fact, the most noteworthy action concerning the vaccine mandate by either House of Congress has been a majority vote of the Senate disapproving the regulation on December 8, 2021. S. J. Res. 29, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021)." [1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf

csense 5y ago

Why does so much news coverage insist on dividing the Court into "liberal" and "conservative" justices? It's almost as if the media thinks there's not enough partisanship in the legislative and executive branches, so they need to inject a red vs. blue narrative to the doings of the Supreme Court. Doesn't SCOTUS typically decide cases more based on technical legal criteria than partisan ideology?

krapp 5y ago
Justices are specifically chosen for their liberal or conservative ideology and perceived loyalty in hopes of ruling in favor of the party in power's long term agenda. Republicans appoint conservative justices, Democrats appoint liberal judges. Both assume quid pro quo. Ignoring this fact is simply naive.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  From a 2018 Washington Post article >The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases. You've fallen prey to media outrage mongering. If you go look at decisions for yourself instead just the ones the media tells you about, you'll find that it is also common for the "conservative" and "liberal" justices to switch sides.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    Most cases which come to the supreme court aren't particularly partisan. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to clarify what the law is, and many ambiguities do not fall along a conservative-liberal axis. Someone can be a conservative and still agree with liberals on many things, and vice versa; indeed that's how intelligent people with well developed opinions ought to behave. Even on partisan issues, there is still typically an element of degree - an extreme conservative may see something as reasonable while a moderate conservative may not. That conservative and liberal justices in some cases vote with each other is in absolutely no way evidence that they are not conservative or liberal.