A Quote from Justice Breyer Encapsulates the Issue that I have with the Supreme Court and the Liberal Interpretation of the Court's Function (Page 2): And you don’t care or understand...

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Fotoartist wrote:

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

And you don’t care or understand the law - unless it agrees with you !

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

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.

You said it. "OSHA laws protect worker safety" regarding materials and processes that THEY use in the workplace. This does not apply to a country-wide v***s.

If it does then why can't OSHA mandate the Flu v*****e too?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Fotoartist wrote:

You said it. "OSHA laws protect worker safety" regarding materials and processes that THEY use in the workplace. This does not apply to a country-wide v***s.

If it does then why can't OSHA mandate the Flu v*****e too?

Wrong

“”” shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
“””

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

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

No Denny, the mandate offers no federal assistance in testing as clearly outlined in the legislation. Like I said earlier, the SCOTUS will tell us what is allowed and not allowed and you will have to live with it no matter if you like it or not.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

DennyT wrote:

Wrong

“”” shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
“””

The intent of the law implies, "...from materials and processes used therein the workplace." Workplaces are not to be mandated as safe havens from all of societies ills including p******cs.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Fotoartist wrote:

"...from materials and processes used therein the workplace." Workplaces are not to be mandated to be havens from all of societies ills.

So I quoted from a source :

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/section5-duties

What’s yours and full context phrase no cherry picking to suit your fancy.
You might ask the meat packing plants if they provided a safe working environment last year

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

DennyT wrote:

So I quoted from a source :

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/section5-duties

What’s yours and full context phrase no cherry picking to suit your fancy.

Any lawyer will tell you, you can't expand the law to what you want disregarding the original intent. The original intent of the lawmakers is the law.

What is the legal intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970?

Google it. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a U.S. law establishing workplace standards to ensure that employees are protected from hazards that compromise their safety and health.

It applies to Employee workplace hazards caused from the job.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Fotoartist wrote:

Any lawyer will tell you, you can't expand the law to what you want disregarding the original intent. The original intent of the lawmakers is the law.

What is the legal intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970?

Google it. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a U.S. law establishing workplace standards to ensure that employees are protected from hazards that compromise their safety and health.

It applies to workplace hazards caused from the job.

This is really an academic argument, the law says wh**ever SCOTUS says it says and right now it looks like the conservative justices with the inclusion of the quasi-liberal Chief Justice are inclined to rule against the employer mandate.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Fotoartist wrote:

Any lawyer will tell you, you can't expand the law... (show quote)

Thank you for getting it right:

“”” The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a U.S. law establishing workplace standards to ensure that employees are protected from hazards that compromise their safety and health.“

As opposed to what you falsely claim earlier

“”” OSHA laws protect worker safety" regarding materials and processes that THEY use in the workplace. This does not apply to a country-wide v***s.
“””

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

Thank you for getting it right:

“”” The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is a U.S. law establishing workplace standards to ensure that employees are protected from hazards that compromise their safety and health.“

As opposed to what you falsely claim earlier

“”” OSHA laws protect worker safety" regarding materials and processes that THEY use in the workplace. This does not apply to a country-wide v***s.
“””

Although one can never predict what SCOTUS will do in the end many court observers seem to be in disagreement with you.

https://fortune.com/2022/01/07/supreme-court-biden-v*****e-mandate/

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

Although one can never predict what SCOTUS will do in the end many court observers seem to be in disagreement with you.

https://fortune.com/2022/01/07/supreme-court-biden-v*****e-mandate/

While I favor the mandate - I hope the decision is based on the law and not political partisanship

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

JohnFrim wrote:

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.

John you seem unable to realize or accept the U.S. Constitution gives only LIMITED power to the government. Of that power the government is able to ONLY do specific things. Like it or not, mandating medical injections because of the v***s is not one of those powers. Take a look at our Constitution and you tell me/us where the government has that power. In my opinion it does not. Furthermore I know of any law that mandates v******tions. Here you are over and over telling American citizens about our Constitution and how it affect us when you honestly do not have a clue about our system of government. I know of no other Constitution of any other country that gives citizens rights and limits the rights of government. I suspect your government can and will do as it pleases. Certainly the Australian government can do as it pleases to take care of citizens. We ain't Canada and we sure as hell ain't Australia. This is America John where We the People have the right to curtail government.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Fotoartist wrote:

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

Well said. The ONLY time I have ever heard the word, Collective, in my life is when C*******m is being discussed, where the Collective works for the STATE. That is what Liberals want. Not in my lifetime.

Dennis

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

While I favor the mandate - I hope the decision is based on the law and not political partisanship

I think that the conservative majority on the court has shown through recent decisions that they are not political, they just happen to show more fidelity in the written law and constitution rather than to a living constitution as the liberal side of the court views it. This morning on Fox News Sunday Congressman Clyburn the Democratic Whip spoke to the "Living Constitution" and made a case for the court to mold the constitution to fit modern America, he never once mentioned the amendment process. Is his vision of the court one that you would support?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

I think that the conservative majority on the cour... (show quote)

Just so they follow the law in this and other issues they confront. I have always had faith in the court no matter which d********g politician nominated them.