Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
the rover
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
I guess this case doesn't touch on the federal contractor mandate? That's the one that's affecting us. Though it's muted somewhat because of the state I live in - exemptions were handed out liberally.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
the rover
Footballguy
not really. CMS mandate is probably getting upheld. Kavanaugh/Gorsuch/ASB are going to shoot down the OSHA mandate based on major questions doctrine.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
The federal government does mandate vaccines in some instances, though. It's not universal that the federal government has no power to mandate vaccines ever.
the rover
Footballguy
yeah that's not the issue. question is whether OSHA needs a specific grant of authority to enforce this mandate. there's no question that congress could grant it if it doesn't already have it.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Private employers with a vaccine policy should all be prepared to hear - "But the Supreme Court said you can't fire me!"
the rover
Footballguy
coincidentally the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled today that private employers can fire employees for refusing to get vaccinated.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Also worth noting today's hearing was an emergency proceeding as to whether the "mandates" can remain in place or should be stayed while the various challenges proceed in lower courts. We saw recently in the Texas abortion law case they don't necessarily just rule on these based on their view of the merits, even if most of the argument seems focused on the merits.
Dr_Zaius
Footballguy
Yeah I was surprised that the contractor mandate wasn't rolled in. That one allows no opt-out via testing, and with how broadly it is being interpreted will end up covering a ton of people.
Osaurus
Footballguy
I worked for them briefly and can say they have no idea what they’re doing in any situation for reference.
the rover
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Exactly. Some of the SCJs didn't seem to know much about the pandemic, virus, or vaccine. But those things might not really be important to the legal basis of the ruling. Now, if it were someone that had their hand on the levers of public policy making those statements, that would be a different story.
Max Power
Footballguy
The problem is these justices are bringing their own facts into this ruling. Incorrect facts at that. To hear one of the justices say Omicron is just as deadly as Delta is probably best described as ignorance. That isn't a word I like using to describe the USSC.
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1480567138029117446
The Supreme Court has corrected its official transcript to reflect that Justice Gorsuch said flu kills "hundreds, thousands" per year, as the tape suggested, not "hundreds of thousands," as the transcript initially said; "hundreds of thousands" would have been wrong re the US.
The Supreme Court has corrected its official transcript to reflect that Justice Gorsuch said flu kills "hundreds, thousands" per year, as the tape suggested, not "hundreds of thousands," as the transcript initially said; "hundreds of thousands" would have been wrong re the US.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Meh, that's a minor error. The flu will kill ~12-50K per year in the US, 300K-600K worldwide. That's not nearly as egregious as Sotomayor's 100,000 kids in hospital when the actual number is 3,500.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Thank you to all of the lawyers in here for helping people like me better understand the SCOTUS.
@Maurile Tremblay
I hope you are happy and healthy. I miss your insights on any subject, tremendously.
@Maurile Tremblay
I hope you are happy and healthy. I miss your insights on any subject, tremendously.
Sand
Footballguy
I'm personally not sure why the comments or questions around this were even uttered. The argument before the court is concerning the legal power OSHA has. The virulence of the virus is fairly immaterial.
It's not that surprising that the justices don't have the best handle on the facts, especially on more science/technical matters. I see it a decent amount of time in patent cases. It's not as if they are doing their own research, they really only have the record that comes to them from the courts below. Their clerks do tons of research, but probably not the justices themselves. And frankly, some of those facts don't really matter when it comes down to interpreting the law. But yeah, it's embarrassing / maddening when they get some stuff so wrong. But I wouldn't get too worried about what happens at oral arguments since oral arguments don't really have that much influence in the ultimate decisions.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Then why have them? Just submit your briefs or thongs and get it done quickly. #efficiency
That's a fair question. I think it probably helps them flesh out their opinions a bit, ask questions, search for weaknesses in their opinions. But it's largely theater in my very limited courtroom experience.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
They are also used by the judges to try to get the lawyers on their side to make the proper arguements which would aid the case.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Did you ask for one from Philoe? No?
If you can take his statement at face value then you can take mine at face value also. Seeing that conservatives have a 6-3 advantage on the SC it bears to reason that my statement has a greater likelihood of being true than his.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
the rover
Footballguy
Should be fairly quickly. Remember both cases are in a preliminary posture..the question before the court was only whether to allow preliminary injunctions from lower courts to stand until there is a final ruling...that's a different burden and could mean different final decisions (although it's more likely that the rulings will be consistent in the end).
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1294&context=appellatepracticeprocess
Based on this document, oral arguments are important based on which Justice you're talking about.
the rover
Footballguy
oral argument allows the court to explore arguments that were not fully fleshed out in the briefs. sometimes you are convinced that a case hinges on a particular issue, but then the court latches on to something else that you thought was a tangent and it ends up being the basis for a ruling.
it also allows the court to make you defend your arguments.
I don't necessarily agree that oral argument doesn't matter to the end result. It can and it does in some cases.
Maybe he was already familiar with sources supporting Philoe's statement, so he didn't need to ask for more. Or maybe he didn't think Philoe could produce a source, so there was no sense in asking. There are plenty of reasons to ask for sources supporting some statements but not others.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Or, maybe he was okay with a blanket statement made in an effort to disparage one particular political party he obviously does not support and thought it was yuk-yuk funny.....until that same blanket statement was used in the exact same way to disparage the political party he does support. So, he got cute and asked for a link from the second poster and not the first, knowing full well neither poster would be able to produce a link. Then when a link wasn't provided by the second poster he used the response to call the second poster a troll.
I appreciate your attempt to find non-partisan rationale behind some posts made here Maurile, it's admirable, but the scenario laid out above seems highly more likely than yours.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
The Court announced yesterday it will release one or more opinions this Thursday, so there is of course some speculation that's the day.
Argument this morning on a couple immigration detention cases. Monday's argument was interesting for me professionally but probably extremely boring for any normal sane person - involving state Medicaid programs' third-party reimbursement/recovery rights. I would say in that case, just based on the questioning at oral argument, I think Breyer was the only justice who showed a good understanding of the (extremely arcane and non-sexy) issues.
Max Power
Footballguy
I think it was because Sotomayor made a couple wildly inaccurate claims that would be more closely associated to a CNN/MSNBC viewer than Fox viewer.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Looks like a 6-3 ruling. I'd rather like to ask the three dissenters why we even bother to have a legislature at this point.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I'm not sure I understand this comment. I haven't followed this closely, so it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding, but...
Isn't the crux of the argument that the courts / SCOTUS needs to rule on what existing legislation actually means? That is, our legislature could pass new legislation at any time if it chose to do so, or remove the existing legislation if it wanted. However, since our legislature is largely dysfunctional, someone has to interpret the legislation they passed previously. Who should be doing that?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
You're right that congress could pass legislation requiring vaccination any time they want. That would be constitutional IMO.
The fact that congress just can't be bothered isn't a reason to let OSHA be a super-legislature. It shouldn't be too hard to see why we would not want to create this sort of precedent only to toss the keys back to Trump in three years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
One part that sums up the ruling pretty well.
Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply be-cause they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category
Rich Conway
Footballguy
As I said, I haven't followed too closely. Isn't the argument whether the existing legislation grants OSHA the powers to mandate vaccines? That is, we know that existing legislation grants OSHA some fairly broad powers; aren't the courts now being charged with defining exactly how far the limits of those powers extend?
