A Quote from Justice Breyer Encapsulates the Issue that I have with the Supreme Court and the Liberal Interpretation of the Court's Function: Since when is it the role of the court to...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Since when is it the role of the court to mold our constitution to the considerations of what nine robed unelected and un-recallable officials think is good for the country and not to adherence to law? Are they a super legislature? Are we OK with them creating law that can not be challenged even by the Federal Legislature itself?

From the fox4Kc....

"The court’s three liberal justices suggested support for the employer rule. Justice Elena Kagan said officials have shown “quite clearly that no other policy will prevent sickness and death to anywhere like the degree that this one will.” And Justice Stephen Breyer said he found it “unbelievable” that it could be in the “public interest” to put that rule on hold. He said that on Thursday there were some 750,000 new cases in the country and that hospitals are full.

My question is more clearly stated, since when is it in the purview of the court to rule in favor of "public interest" and not the constitution framework?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Blurryeyed wrote:

Since when is it the role of the court to mold our... (show quote)

You have nailed the operative question of the day.

SCOTUS has no business executing or legislating in their job. Their job as proscribed by the Constitution is to rule on whether the principles of the Constitution support the laws of the Legislature and actions of the Executive branch, period.

Their personal opinions are irrelevant. No one elected them. Notice it is just the Liberals who don't get this.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Blurryeyed wrote:

Since when is it the role of the court to mold our... (show quote)

So you would prefer 9 robed "elected" judges so that when they don't rule the way you like you can replace them?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

JohnFrim wrote:

So you would prefer 9 robed "elected" judges so that when they don't rule the way you like you can replace them?

I would prefer that the court rule on the law, not what they think the law should be and that change to the country's constitution were to come through the amendment process as the only legitimate method of change as prescribed in our country's constitution.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JohnFrim wrote:

So you would prefer 9 robed "elected" judges so that when they don't rule the way you like you can replace them?

That is not what he said John. Why is you Liberals cannot simply read what is written. We want the SCOTUS judges to rule as the Constitution directs, not what they think might be best. We have Congress to hopefully enact laws that will work best for ALL Americans. Mandates are not laws.

Dennis

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

I would prefer that the court rule on the law, not what they think the law should be and that change to the country's constitution were to come through the amendment process as the only legitimate method of change as prescribed in our country's constitution.

Have you bothered to read the 1970 law you have commented on ?

While I support the osha mandate just as I do other OSHA laws protecting worker safety. The case is “ does Osha have the authority to issue the mandate “ and is not the v*****e or the v***s.

It seems osha has that authority under the law.

That’s all that “ should” count.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

I will be surprised if they rule against the mandate. Some have too much faith in this r****d system. I hope Im wrong

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Blurryeyed wrote:

My question is more clearly stated, since when is it in the purview of the court to rule in favor of "public interest" and not the constitution framework?

So it seems you do not believe that the ultimate intent of the Constitution is to ensure the health, strength and viability of the US as a nation, which is a collective of individuals.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

JohnFrim wrote:

So it seems you do not believe that the ultimate intent of the Constitution is to ensure the health, strength and viability of the US as a nation, which is a collective of individuals.

It isn't! It is a collective of individual States. The title "United States of America" should have been your main and glaringly obvious clue.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

Have you bothered to read the 1970 law you have commented on ?

While I support the osha mandate just as I do other OSHA laws protecting worker safety. The case is “ does Osha have the authority to issue the mandate “ and is not the v*****e or the v***s.

It seems osha has that authority under the law.

That’s all that “ should” count.

In your opinion OSHA has that authority and indeed that is the question before the court, obviously there are those who disagree with your assessment and it matters little what you or I think and greatly matters what the majority of justices on the Supreme Court think.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

In your opinion OSHA has that authority and indeed that is the question before the court, obviously there are those who disagree with your assessment and it matters little what you or I think and greatly matters what the majority of justices on the Supreme Court think.

Yes but I have looked at the law have you ?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

WNYShooter wrote:

It isn't! It is a collective of individual States. The title "United States of America" should have been your main and glaringly obvious clue.

And what is a state? Is it not a collective of counties? And is a county not a collective of communities (cities, towns)? And is a community not a collective of people?

You are arguing semantics, not the principle behind the words.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

Yes but I have looked at the law have you ?

Yes, and this is what I see that is pertinent,

"Nothing in this or any other provision of this Act shall be deemed to authorize or require medical examination, immunization, or treatment for those who object thereto on religious grounds, except where such is necessary for the protection of the health or safety of others. Upon the request of any employer who is required to measure and record exposure of employees to substances or physical agents as provided under this subsection, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall furnish full financial or other assistance to such employer for the purpose of defraying any additional expense incurred by him in carrying out the measuring and recording as provided in this subsection."

This is the only clause I saw in the legislation that addresses immunizations, and the current mandates by the federal government are non conforming to this clause, I would also suggest that I am uncertain that this law has ever found its way to the Supreme Court, it is possible that it has but I am not familiar with specific challenges. Just because a law is and has been in place does not mean that it has constitutional authority, it can still be knocked down by the court.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

Yes, and this is what I see that is pertinent, br... (show quote)

And that’s fine that’s what the mandate does isn’t it .apparentjy you don’t even know what the mandate requires

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

JohnFrim wrote:

So it seems you do not believe that the ultimate intent of the Constitution is to ensure the health, strength and viability of the US as a nation, which is a collective of individuals.

Straight out of the C*******t Manifesto. You do not understand what our country is about.