Summary: We discuss the dissenting opinion, which mainly consists of the three liberal/boneheaded justices not knowing the Constitution and making fools of themselves. It's tragically funny cause they were appointed by not my party. Otherwise it would be just tragic. Basically they argue that policies they like should be legal and policies they don't should be illegal, regardless of their actual jobs. Might give you a headache by the end so be careful.
Bottom line: Lefty justices want to be legislators.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan dissenting. It begins, “Every day, COVID–19 poses grave dangers to the citizens of this country—and particularly, to its workers." Not true working age people make up about one quarter of covid deaths. "The disease has by now killed almost 1 million Americans and hospitalized almost 4 million. It spreads by person-to-person contact in confined indoor spa—” ok this is so dumb. If you read the majority and the concurring opinion, you will see that they immediately deal with the legal problem. Does OSHA have this authority? That is the central question the SCOTUS is trying to answer. But alas, the dissenting justices (whom were all appointed by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) have started their dissent such. Not with any legal discussion of executive authority or congressional delegation of power. Instead, they write as if they were legislatures. If you showed me that excerpt and asked who was talking, I would say either a unionized talking head on YouTube or a lawmaker. This is not the language of ANY state or federal judge, MUCH LESS A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!
Frankly, this dissent is an embarrassment, and since they were not appointed by my party, let’s laugh at them some more. “So the administrative agency charged with ensuring health and safety in workplaces did what Congress commanded it to: It took action to address COVID–19’s continuing threat in those spaces.” Did it now? Did it do what Congress commanded it to? Well let’s find out, shall we? Oh, what’s this? In the majority opinion it says, “In fact, the most noteworthy action concerning the vaccine mandate by either House of Congress has been a majority vote of the Senate disapproving the regulation on December 8, 2021. S. J. Res. 29, 117th Cong., 1st Sess. (2021).” Hmm… strike one. Let’s keep going. “Acting outside of its competence and without legal basis,” I’m sorry what? The court is acting without legal basis? You started your DISSENT by arguing that the policy is good, NOT THAT IT IS LEGAL, and you are accusing the majority of acting “without legal basis?” Either you are exceedingly dumb or you’re a dishonest hypocrite, or both. I’m not going to copy paste the entire decision, but if you read the dissent, it’s pretty plain that these justices aren’t particularly worried about OSHA’s statutory authority more than they’re worried about whether they like the policy or not. There’s plenty of little nuggets of stupidity in this opinion but let’s move on.
The dissent writes, “Of course, the majority is correct that OSHA is not a roving public health regulator: It has power only to protect employees from workplace hazards. Contra the majority, [the OSHA Act] is indifferent to whether a hazard in the workplace is also found elsewhere.” Okay I don’t think these justices understand OSHA’s purpose. The point of OSHA is to protect employees from hazards that occur as a result of their workplace. For example, when I worked at Wendy’s, I had to wear anti-slip shoes so I wouldn't fall on my ass because the floors were slippery. The hazard is “the floors were slippery” and it occurs as a result of being a fast food floor (that's like a bad tongue twister i think). However, when I get home, I can take those shoes off because my floors aren’t slippery because IT’S NOT A RESTAURANT FLOOR! I can’t believe I had to explain that to a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. The dissent quotes noise regulations as being OSHA regulations where the risk also exists outside of the workplace. However, the title of the OSHA regulation is “Occupational noise exposure.” The adjective is important. OSHA can regulate excessive noise as a result of the workplace.
Then, we arrive at this incredible sentence: “Even if the merits were a close question—which they are not—the Court would badly err by issuing this stay. That is because a court may not issue a stay unless the balance of harms and the public interest support the action.” I’m sorry, this has got to be a joke. “The balance of harms and the public interest support the action.” FOR THE LAST TIME, THAT IS NOT THE SCOTUS’ JOB! It’s as if they don’t know that Congress exists. How is it possible that not one but three SCOTUS justices completely ignore the function of Congress? It’s Article I of the Constitution. It’s right there! The very first one! And you guys are Article III. And the shortest. Your’s is the job that could feasibly be automated away and we actually wouldn’t lose that much.
But that is what the Left thinks of the government and the Supreme Court. Instead of having elected officials in charge of lawmaking, with executive agencies to support them and the judiciary to ensure that they are following the law, we should have unelected officials make ALL the policy, and then we can have the judiciary decided that they like the policy and if it’s blatantly unlawful and unpopular welllllllll… I like the policy so let’s keep it. That’s what they think.
Ok, I think I’ve had enough of this, and you probably have too. If you’ve got any qualms or comments don’t hesitate to voice them. Just be aware that I will make fun of them if they are stupid. Don’t write stupid comments. Or do. I don’t care.