101–110 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this isn’t about almost anything else. This is about control over one’s body. This is from someone who chose freely to get the vaccine. Even at my own peril I support other’s freedom to choose.
Your freedom to control over one's body ends when it comes to the safety and health of other people's bodies. That's why herd immunity is a thing.
This is a temporary injunction not a ruling on the merits. Just like Democratic judges doing this to Trump, it's far more likely to be influenced by politics of the particular Judge or Court of Appeals that any meaningful statement of the law (which it is not).
Mandates are probably not going to work but what would work is denying insurance claims. If someone ends up in a hospital occupying an ICU bed for an illness that could have been prevented by a vaccine widely and freely available then insurance companies (and medicare) should refuse to pay thousands of dollars for their treatment. It was their choice not to use preventative care available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the role of the CMS, as established by congress, is to set the guidelines of care and standards of participation for providers who opt to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. They set rules for everything from how many hospitals can be owned by a single entity, to what sorts of qualifications are required for hospital administrators, to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients. T…
Sure, that’s the loophole. What’s happening here is yet another end-run around the democratic process. People are tired of emergency powers, executive orders, and delegated authority being used to enact some of the most impactful laws of our time. We want the Schoolhouse Rock version of law-making because we at least get something of a say in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting you bring up both commerce clause and abortion as I'm currently taking a constitutional law class covering both issues. The commerce clause did wildly expand through the 20th century, but I just want to point out that US v Lopez substantially cut back Congress' Commerce power. It laid out clear restrictions to what and when Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Further cases like NF…
Thanks for the insight. I wasn't aware of US v Lopez. The most egregious use I found of the commerce clause was Wickard v Filburn. It was a depression era ruling that said the federal government had the right to prevent a farmer on growing food on his own land to feed his livestock in opposition to a law meant to 'stabilize wheat prices' by having farmers not grow food. Ever since then I was no a fan of commerce clau…
> Doesn't it need to be framed as the government having the right to apply a medical treatment to me against my will?
This will be tested in litigation in cases like OP, but remember, these vaccine mandates are NOT the government forcing you to accept medical treatment. These mandates have been coercing private employers to require vaccination as a condition of employment. This indirection muddies the water and I can't speculate as to what the courts will ultimately decide on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting you bring up both commerce clause and abortion as I'm currently taking a constitutional law class covering both issues. The commerce clause did wildly expand through the 20th century, but I just want to point out that US v Lopez substantially cut back Congress' Commerce power. It laid out clear restrictions to what and when Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Further cases like NF…
> Of course, the demographics of the court has changed. Thats a problem when the demographics of a ruling body affect rights protected by the Constitution. Wisely the Constitution also provides remedy for when that gets too out of hand: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I think one area the Constitution missed the boat is that when a politician or someone in delegated power make…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. It would be the same as a president banning health care providers from serving muslims. Women have a constitutional right to get an abortion. People don't have a constitutional right to not vaccinate. Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine. These SCOTUS approved mandates helped rid America of smallpox.
> Banning health care providers from abortion would be unconstitutional. Forcing care workers to take a medicine against their will is constitutional you say? All medical procedures should be voluntary, or we go back to the times of lobotomy and forced sterilizations of minorities (and that's not as many decades back as you may think). > Government can and has jailed and/or fined people for not getting a vaccine. Thi…
Rules and laws. The virus does not care about these. At all. It does not care about your race, it does not care about your age. It doesn't care about your employment status, gender, religion, disability, nationality, wealth, or anything else. All it cares about is if it can replicate. As we debate and discuss and argue if laws and rules are justified or not, the virus simply ignores everything and does what it has be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so you'd be cool with employers banning employees who get an abortion. something, something, consequences.
Having had an abortion doesn't affect your ability to safely do your job. Being unvaccinated does.
what about all the WFH people mandated into vaccines? how does it impact that employer?