Current Events > The Supreme Court has blocked Biden's mandate for large businesses

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gobstoppers12 posted...

No, no it is not.

The point has entered orbit.

Best part of this ruling is that we'll end up with less anti-vaxxers

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



AMEN!!

The supreme court has been illegitimate for 5 years. Maybe someday someone will do something about it.

marthsheretoo posted...

The supreme court has been illegitimate for 5 years. Maybe someday someone will do something about it.

... yeah? Has it? Based on which law?

Ayyy justice for all!

The Supreme Court has basically always been illegitimate; its authority for judicial review was invented out of thin air.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

... yeah? Has it? Based on which law?

If you depend on laws to tell you what is and isn't legitimate, you're gonna have a bad time.

Ultra_Mallow posted...

Going by the death rates given by the CDC you had a well over 99% to survive covid. The fact people want to line up for a shot that's shows increasingly significant decline after 4 months and even into the negative efficiency should be reason enough alone to not force everyone to have the shots. If you want multiple shots like Israel every 5 months be my guest but please don't force everyone to be apart of a gene therapy that has zero long term data and phizers own dataset showed over 400k adverse reactions alone.

Oh no! Every 5 months. Cry moar.

Also, most adverse reactions aren't anything serious.

America is so ****ed. I say we dome it off and call it a day.

marthsheretoo posted...

If you depend on laws to tell you what is and isn't legitimate, you're gonna have a bad time.

Okay, so... define "legitimate" in this context. When you say the Supreme Court is "illegitimate," what precisely are you trying to convey?

Most definitions of "legitimate" have some mention of being lawful or following the rules, so... what is the exact nature of your claim?

was anyone actually surprised? it was the common sense ruling based on the common sense laws of the land.

its the way it is now. Whoever was fanatically in favor of what would have been huge overreach should evaluate why they hold such a belief

time to pack the courts.

pure_temper posted...

was anyone actually surprised? it was the common sense ruling based on the common sense laws of the land.

its the way it is now. Whoever was fanatically in favor of what would have been huge overreach should evaluate why they hold such a belief

I agree. I liked the mandate, but pretty sure it was unconstitutional based on the law.

Business is more important lives, gotcha America, gotcha

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Okay, so... define "legitimate" in this context. When you say the Supreme Court is "illegitimate," what precisely are you trying to convey?

Most definitions of "legitimate" have some mention of being lawful or following the rules, so... what is the exact nature of your claim?

The SC has lost whatever pretense they held of being a nonpartisan entity making rulings based on their understanding of the constitution rather than working backward from partisan preference. Furthermore, they have shown that they are suceptible to corruption from the legislative branch (the Merrick Garland debacle, which is why I put my time frame at 5 years).

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanisms for its rulings and relies purely on its image as a figure of authority to give it any meaning. If enough people in the right places decide they are no longer worth listening to, they lose any power they have. John Roberts knows this - why do you think he's so concerned with the court's legacy? - and the number of battles he's been losing with his own court is an indicator of how little the court cares about maintaining its veneer of respectability.

I find the court illegitimate and all it takes for that to mean something is for other people to believe it too. Laws don't enter the equation at any point.

pure_temper posted...

was anyone actually surprised? it was the common sense ruling based on the common sense laws of the land.

its the way it is now. Whoever was fanatically in favor of what would have been huge overreach should evaluate why they hold such a belief

this, imagine complaining about trump being a dictator fascist hitler for years but want joe biden to force businesses to operate his way

big_pimper posted...

this, imagine complaining about trump being a dictator fascist hitler for years but want joe biden to force businesses to operate his way

imagine living through a global pandemic and being on the virus' side

Like it or not, Chief Justice Roberts is probably the closest thing to a Supreme Court Justice doing his job. This is why he often swings to the left, and why far right conservatives hate him.

I don't always agree with him, but I do respect him for trying to interpret the laws that we have.

According to the GOP's own arguments for denying Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court is illegitimate, otherwise they would have waited to replace RBG.

Backwards country we live in

pure_temper posted...

was anyone actually surprised? it was the common sense ruling based on the common sense laws of the land.

its the way it is now. Whoever was fanatically in favor of what would have been huge overreach should evaluate why they hold such a belief

Actually, just the opposite of everything you said. This ruling flies in the face of a swath of established rulings.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts established that vaccine mandates are not inherently unconstitutional and there are many rulings and laws giving OSHA broad oversight to establish regulations as it sees fit in relation to worker safety.

marthsheretoo posted...

I find the court illegitimate and all it takes for that to mean something is for other people to believe it too.

Okay, so there's no legal or procedural argument here, but you're just upset that the court doesn't rule your way? Is that what's going on here? It seems to be what's going on here.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Okay, so there's no legal or procedural argument here, but you're just upset that the court doesn't rule your way? Is that what's going on here? It seems to be what's going on here.

Can you quote what part of my post is giving you this impression? I feel like you're basing this on a desire to dismiss my post rather than on anything I've actually said.

Gobstoppers12 is a hardcore Trumper, no point in talking to him.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is the same SC that allows Manchin to kill hundreds a year with his insulin prices.

They do t care about us, and they won't until we make them care.

Elmer_Glue posted...

Gobstoppers12 is a hardcore Trumper, no point in talking to him.

Yes, yes, Gobby sucks. But he can at least have a conversation without it devolving into racial slurs and conspiracy theories. You have to set the bar pretty low if you want to talk politics with a Republican these days.

Hell, I'd rather argue with him than Broseph or Rebel.

Elmer_Glue posted...

Gobstoppers12 is a hardcore Trumper, no point in talking to him.

I thought Trump was pro-vaccine?

What say you, @Gobstoppers12 ?

marthsheretoo posted...

Can you quote what part of my post is giving you this impression? I feel like you're basing this on a desire to dismiss my post rather than on anything I've actually said.

marthsheretoo posted...

The SC has lost whatever pretense they held of being a nonpartisan entity making rulings based on their understanding of the constitution rather than working backward from partisan preference.

This just seems like a more verbose way of saying "I don't like it when the court disagrees with me"

The Supreme Court as an entity is not partisan, but its members all have different thought processes. That's why there are nine of them. They talk it over, make their arguments, and vote. You can read the reasoning and the disagreements of major decisions.

There's no point in history when the Supreme Court was made up of completely objective, neutral, apolitical justices. That has never been the standard, so idk what you're getting at.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Lol shut the fuck up

marthsheretoo posted...

The Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanisms for its rulings and relies purely on its image as a figure of authority to give it any meaning.

That's... the point.
SCOTUS doesn't enforce anything, and it's major purpose is telling the rest of the government what it also can't enforce.

Derwood posted...

I thought Trump was pro-vaccine?

What say you, @Gobstoppers12 ?

Trump is pro vaccine. I am also pro vaccine. I have both initial doses and my booster, and I tell everybody they should get vaccinated.

I just have an issue with mandates of this type in general.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


The straw man is strong with this one, holy shit lol

Fuck this stupid fucking country. If there's one thing our useless government should do, it's protecting public health, and half of them can't even get on board with that. The other half don't have the balls to bully it through.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Trump is pro vaccine. I am also pro vaccine. I have both initial doses and my booster, and I tell everybody they should get vaccinated.

I just have an issue with mandates of this type in general.

Who care about in general? How about we demand that the government do some things, and flip our shit when they do others? It's called nuance.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Trump is pro vaccine. I am also pro vaccine. I have both initial doses and my booster, and I tell everybody they should get vaccinated.

I just have an issue with mandates of this type in general.

If the antivax movement wasn't extending this pandemic so badly that were facing a possible collapse of our Healthcare system, you'd have a point, but it is, and you don't.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule in terms of "this is a rule you can't break" but in terms of "the reason for this action does or does not surpass the violation this causes".

So to make this ruling, they are saying that the health of the nation is less valuable than the rights of weaponized ignorance. There is no possible justification for this decision.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This just seems like a more verbose way of saying "I don't like it when the court disagrees with me"

The Supreme Court as an entity is not partisan, but its members all have different thought processes. That's why there are nine of them. They talk it over, make their arguments, and vote. You can read the reasoning and the disagreements of major decisions.

There's no point in history when the Supreme Court was made up of completely objective, neutral, apolitical justices. That has never been the standard, so idk what you're getting at.

I read the decisions, and it's frankly laughable that you somehow think I never disagreed with a supreme court decision before 2016. The court has always made some rulings I agreed with and some I didn't. The issue is in that reasoning you mentioned and not in the results - it is pretty obvious when someone is working backward to find justification and when they're working forward to find an interpretation. The number of significant rulings in which the former is true has increased dramatically.

If you really need something based on law or precedent, I'll bring up Garland again. You ignored my mention of him last time I brought him up because it didn't fit your agenda of painting me as someone who doesn't like the court's decisions, but his confirmation (or lack thereof) was a pretty clear violation of the senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Lol shut the fuck up

But hes right, youre pro pandemic at this point

Horrorbooksguy posted...

There is no possible justification for this decision.

It's unconstitutional. That's the justification.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's unconstitutional. That's the justification.

Can you point me to the part of the constitution that makes this unconstitutional?

greyfox747 posted...

But hes right, youre pro pandemic at this point

False. Please take this rhetoric someplace else, because I'm extremely disinterested in your input right now.

"I support vaccines, but don't care if nobody gets them, making them useless and getting lots of people hurt or killed "

No one will ever get outraged over the vaccine mandates that have been in place forever, though, because those were from before a dumbfuck President and a bunch of scumbag talking heads successfully made telling blatant lies and hurting people a valid opinion.

Imagine if Flint happened today, every Republican in the country would be arguing that we have the free speech to dump lead in the water and it's a slippery slope to let big government regulate drinking water. You can just drink bottles instead of forcing your Democrat opinions on our water.

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

It's unconstitutional. That's the justification.

It's not though. The violation it causes is a lot less than any number of mandates, while the emergency situation behind it is extremely dire.

Just admit you're pro death, righties. At least you won't be bullshitting anyone.