Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

iapps.courts.state.ny.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 443 posts

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#61

Post by jrockway »

phpisthebest wrote: post #59
czinck wrote: post #5

Because it's confusing: the NY Supreme Court is just a trial court, it's not at all like the US Supreme Court. The top appellate court is called the Court of Appeals. It's called "supreme" because it has general jurisdiction, as opposed to things like traffic court.

It is confusing because NY likes to be confusing. Almost every other state the State Supreme Court, is the top court of the state, just like the federal court And the Court of Appeals is lower than the State Supreme Court. Why NY needs to needless complicate everything is beyond me

I guess it's because it's old. From the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court):

> The New York Supreme Court is the oldest Supreme Court with general original jurisdiction. It was established as the Supreme Court of Judicature by the Province of New York on May 6, 1691. That court was continued by the State of New York after independence was declared in 1776. It became the New York Supreme Court under the New York Constitutional Convention of 1846.

The name predates the US Supreme Court (in fact, predates the US itself), and many other state courts. Basically, someone changed the naming convention out from under them.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#62

Post by collegeburner »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #46
jakogut wrote: post #10

Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by decl…

> How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences? Isn't this like saying developers should suffer consequences if they allow bugs to get into their code? Because we are perpetrators of flawed code, like law makers are perpetrators of flawed laws? > Regardless of one's opinion of said rights,…

because its not always accidental. look at abortion laws before there was reason to challenge them, or many blue state gun laws. they're giant "fuck you"s to getting told to stop doing smth stupid. like NY gets its gun law overturned so its like "fuck you we're gonna make super invasive requirements for testing (which you cant even do in state) and turning over social media handles (hella chilling effect)." or almost all the lockdown orders that got overturned, but after 1-2 years of being in effect.

really grinds my gears cuz they KNOW these laws will get killed in court but it will take 3-4 years so in the mean time stfu and deal with it.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#63

Post by muaytimbo »

crazygringo wrote: post #37
jakogut wrote: post #10

Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by decl…

In cases of judicial review where the courts strike down a law, it's usually not as simple as you're trying to make it. First of all it's not at all clear in advance that the laws are unconstitutional, and that the lawmakers are "perpetrators". Plenty of times the laws are challenged and the courts uphold them. The whole point is that laws often push boundaries or address areas not previously addressed by the courts,…

I’d like to see them held accountable. Every person who was affected by an unconstitutional law should have the ability to sue for damages arising from the intentional abridgment of their constitutional rights.

Our rights would remain more intact if lawmakers actually faced personal financial penalties when they try to deny us the already very few rights afforded to us by the constitution.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#65

Post by muaytimbo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #46
jakogut wrote: post #10

Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by decl…

> How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences? Isn't this like saying developers should suffer consequences if they allow bugs to get into their code? Because we are perpetrators of flawed code, like law makers are perpetrators of flawed laws? > Regardless of one's opinion of said rights,…

Don’t developers face consequences over bugs in their code? Too many and you might get shown the door.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#66

Post by encryptluks2 »

hunterb123 wrote: post #22
TheRealPomax wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks at the literal million dead Americans what survivors are we talking about again? If you got fired during the days where we finally had a vaccine and you refused to take it, you were fired for a very good reason.

But if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread that means you were fired because of... what? "Get the vaccine to reduce your symptoms or I'll fire you incase it kills you!" It's not like the vaccine prevents spread to other coworkers, why require it? Everyone has a different health risk, let them decide whether they can weather a certain viral load. That is, unless, you have a vaccine that can actually prevent trasmission…

A lot of people no longer believe in personal freedom. They would rather fire employees before banning tobacco and alcohol, yet tobacco and alcohol is far more dangerous and leads to more deaths than COVID-19.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#67

Post by whoopdedo »

afarrell wrote: post #43
RC_ITR wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place You've hit the core problem of society/government that countless generations have tried to obfuscate via an academic body that implies that social interactions can be studied/understood like natural sciences. At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to court, because if you…

> At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of violence Cripes. Nope. If this was true, how do you explain backyard cookouts, pool parties, trick-or-treating, or Christmas present exchanges? How do you explain folk dance festivals, buskers, and non-royal weddings? How on earth do you explain hugs?

Because every stick needs a carrot.

Positive reinforcement is not antithetical to the threat of violence and can go hand-in-hand. If you're good to me I'll treat you like family. But violate that peace and me and my clan will come down on you with furious anger. That's how people have lived for time immemorial.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#68

Post by phpisthebest »

jrockway wrote: post #61
phpisthebest wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is confusing because NY likes to be confusing. Almost every other state the State Supreme Court, is the top court of the state, just like the federal court And the Court of Appeals is lower than the State Supreme Court. Why NY needs to needless complicate everything is beyond me

I guess it's because it's old. From the Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court ): > The New York Supreme Court is the oldest Supreme Court with general original jurisdiction. It was established as the Supreme Court of Judicature by the Province of New York on May 6, 1691. That court was continued by the State of New York after independence was declared in 1776. It became the New York…

it being old does not explain why it could not have been made into being the Top court.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#69

Post by SllX »

phpisthebest wrote: post #60
lkrubner wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels wrote a whole book showing that voters do not keep track of what elected officials do, and so politicians are not punished for bad behavior, see excerpt here: https://demodexio.substack.com/p/longer-elected-terms-lead-t...

This is also shown in polling data, where congress on the whole has an approval rating of less than 10%, yet most years the incumbent is reelected That statistic alone has me questioning if democracy is a good system

That’s easy: it’s not our guy! It’s those other guys! We’re wonderful and they’re terrible!

That’s how incumbents can maintain their edge whilst Congress as a body is untrusted.

I’m convinced that capping the House of Representatives at 435 was a mistake, and Federalizing most laws even more of a mistake. The question isn’t whether democracy can scale, but whether ours can within its present constraints. The reforms I would want to see are mechanical; not social, economic or judicial. A Continental-sized nation with hundreds of millions and growing probably needs thousands—not a few hundred!—of legislators if representation is to be meaningful. Short of that, my Representative has 700K+ constituents, so any one individual holding her accountable without other connections is a pipe dream at best.

Post reply on HN