Coronavirus Outbreak

[nett]

She was asking why OSHA doesn't have the authority to regulate and impose workplace heath-related mandates for Covid when they have been doing it for 30 years for other types of viruses. The oral language was perhaps a little sloppy as it is a transcription from an oral question where we don't have the actual inflection and oral punctuation to help clarify. But it is clear from the context that is what she was asking. And it is a perfectly legitimate question. I'm not sure what you think she is misinformed about. OSHA has indeed been imposing strict workplace requirements for blood borne viruses for years. I have to go through blood borne pathogen training every single year on my job as part of OSHA workplace requirements. I'm not aware that anyone has ever questioned their authority to do so. What is different about Covid?

You're deeply confused about a lot of things. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you didn't actually listen to what she said.

[Ken]

She was asking why OSHA doesn't have the authority to regulate and impose workplace heath-related mandates for Covid when they have been doing it for 30 years for other types of viruses. The oral language was perhaps a little sloppy as it is a transcription from an oral question where we don't have the actual inflection and oral punctuation to help clarify. But it is clear from the context that is what she was asking. And it is a perfectly legitimate question. I'm not sure what you think she is misinformed about. OSHA has indeed been imposing strict workplace requirements for blood borne viruses for years. I have to go through blood borne pathogen training every single year on my job as part of OSHA workplace requirements. I'm not aware that anyone has ever questioned their authority to do so. What is different about Covid?

You're deeply confused about a lot of things. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you didn't actually listen to what she said.

In the actual paragraph Josh is pointing to she specifically mentioned Hep C and Hep B which are, indeed blood borne viruses. She did not mention Covid. Here is the transcript. It is on page 29 at the bottom: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 4_kifl.pdf

If you read all the surrounding paragraphs you will find that she is talking about and asking about OSHA's 1991 regulations about blood-born viruses like HIV and Hepatitis and why if OSHA had the authority to do that in 1991, why they don't also have the same authority to regulate Covid. Read all the surrounding paragraphs and you will find that I am correct. Read all of it for context, not some out-of-context snipped reproduced on some other site.

[Josh]

COVID isn’t a blood borne disease. That wound e the most obvious difference.

[Ken]

COVID isn’t a blood borne disease. That wound e the most obvious difference.

Which would mean that the specific safety regulations would be different. But the authority to regulate workplace safety would be the same.

The Supreme Court is going to rule however they are going to rule. They will probably shoot down the administration's OSHA rules because that is how they seem inclined. But Sotomayor's question was perfectly valid. If OSHA has the authority to regulate one category of virus, why not other categories of virus?

[Josh]

COVID isn’t a blood borne disease. That wound e the most obvious difference.

Which would mean that the specific safety regulations would be different. But the authority to regulate workplace safety would be the same.

The Supreme Court is going to rule however they are going to rule. They will probably shoot down the administration's OSHA rules because that is how they seem inclined. But Sotomayor's question was perfectly valid. If OSHA has the authority to regulate one category of virus, why not other categories of virus?

Because OSHA’s power is not unlimited and does not extend to enforcing a mass vaccine mandate on every person in America who isn’t independently wealthy enough that they don’t have to work.

[Ken]

COVID isn’t a blood borne disease. That wound e the most obvious difference.

Which would mean that the specific safety regulations would be different. But the authority to regulate workplace safety would be the same.

The Supreme Court is going to rule however they are going to rule. They will probably shoot down the administration's OSHA rules because that is how they seem inclined. But Sotomayor's question was perfectly valid. If OSHA has the authority to regulate one category of virus, why not other categories of virus?

Because OSHA’s power is not unlimited and does not extend to enforcing a mass vaccine mandate on every person in America who isn’t independently wealthy enough that they don’t have to work.

That is what this case was about.

[nett]

In the actual paragraph Josh is pointing to she specifically mentioned Hep C and Hep B which are, indeed blood borne viruses. She did not mention Covid. Here is the transcript. It is on page 29 at the bottom: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 4_kifl.pdf

If you read all the surrounding paragraphs you will find that she is talking about and asking about OSHA's 1991 regulations about blood-born viruses like HIV and Hepatitis and why if OSHA had the authority to do that in 1991, why they don't also have the same authority to regulate Covid. Read all the surrounding paragraphs and you will find that I am correct. Read all of it for context, not some out-of-context snipped reproduced on some other site.

That's completely incoherent as it relates to COVID. I will amend my original assessment that you're deeply confused. I think you're experiencing a lot of cognitive dissonance by needing to defend someone as misinformated as justice Sotamayor.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just admit the obvious that she's an activist loon who has no idea what she's talking about in matters of law or current events?

[nett]

COVID isn’t a blood borne disease. That wound e the most obvious difference.

Which would mean that the specific safety regulations would be different. But the authority to regulate workplace safety would be the same.

The Supreme Court is going to rule however they are going to rule. They will probably shoot down the administration's OSHA rules because that is how they seem inclined. But Sotomayor's question was perfectly valid. If OSHA has the authority to regulate one category of virus, why not other categories of virus?

OSHA mandates equipment and procedures to protect workers from bloodborne illnesses in healthcare settings or other settings where transmission is MUCH more likely than it would be in a normal workplace.

How is that remotely related to mandating vaccines (that don't prevent transmission) in a workplace environment where nothing about the environment means that transmission is more likely than anywhere else (home, grocery, sports event etc).

Sotamayor is an activist judge who believes you should mandate from the bench, and her political ideology makes her sympathetic to vaccine mandate. She justifies that sympathy by being incredibly misinformed on the "facts" about COVID.

Why can't you just call a spade a spade. It was an obviously idiotic take, and she's being panned for it universally, but you feel compelled to defend it.

Why is that?

[Ken]

COVID isn’t a blood borne disease. That wound e the most obvious difference.

Which would mean that the specific safety regulations would be different. But the authority to regulate workplace safety would be the same.

The Supreme Court is going to rule however they are going to rule. They will probably shoot down the administration's OSHA rules because that is how they seem inclined. But Sotomayor's question was perfectly valid. If OSHA has the authority to regulate one category of virus, why not other categories of virus?

OSHA mandates equipment and procedures to protect workers from bloodborne illnesses in healthcare settings or other settings where transmission is MUCH more likely than it would be in a normal workplace.

How is that remotely related to mandating vaccines (that don't prevent transmission) in a workplace environment where nothing about the environment means that transmission is more likely than anywhere else (home, grocery, sports event etc).

Sotamayor is an activist judge who believes you should mandate from the bench, and her political ideology makes her sympathetic to vaccine mandate. She justifies that sympathy by being incredibly misinformed on the "facts" about COVID.

Why can't you just call a spade a spade. It was an obviously idiotic take, and she's being panned for it universally, but you feel compelled to defend it.

Why is that?

You have it exactly opposite. If the vaccine mandate is overturned it will have been because the conservatives on the court are engaging in judicial activism and mandating from the bench, not the liberal judges. That is the actual definition of judicial activism. You obviously agree with it which is fine. But asking the Supreme Court to intervene in an issue and rule from the bench is actually judicial activism.

[nett]

Which would mean that the specific safety regulations would be different. But the authority to regulate workplace safety would be the same.

The Supreme Court is going to rule however they are going to rule. They will probably shoot down the administration's OSHA rules because that is how they seem inclined. But Sotomayor's question was perfectly valid. If OSHA has the authority to regulate one category of virus, why not other categories of virus?

OSHA mandates equipment and procedures to protect workers from bloodborne illnesses in healthcare settings or other settings where transmission is MUCH more likely than it would be in a normal workplace.

How is that remotely related to mandating vaccines (that don't prevent transmission) in a workplace environment where nothing about the environment means that transmission is more likely than anywhere else (home, grocery, sports event etc).

Sotamayor is an activist judge who believes you should mandate from the bench, and her political ideology makes her sympathetic to vaccine mandate. She justifies that sympathy by being incredibly misinformed on the "facts" about COVID.

Why can't you just call a spade a spade. It was an obviously idiotic take, and she's being panned for it universally, but you feel compelled to defend it.

Why is that?

You have it exactly opposite. If the vaccine mandate is overturned it will have been because the conservatives on the court are engaging in judicial activism and mandating from the bench, not the liberal judges. That is the actual definition of judicial activism. You obviously agree with it which is fine. But asking the Supreme Court to intervene in an issue and rule from the bench is actually judicial activism.

Much like Sotamayor, you don't understand federal vs state jurisdiction. I suggest the 10th amendment as an introduction.\

Are you as concerned an Breyer about the "750 million new cases” on Thursday?

I must admit, I would find it rather amusing to watch you defend all the other loony things that were said by the radical leftist justices, but I'll stop here, as it would not be charitable.