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

Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 402 posts

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#81

Post by 0fuchs »

bko wrote: post #3

> Doughty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot. > "There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million healthcare workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," wrote Doughty. That's a good point. You can agree that its within the federal authority to mand…

To often we see procedure propriety as government interference in free society

Which is it?

Maybe social utilitarianism is all there is?

Maybe the rest is just being left alone. Formal demands by churches their flock act as social missionaries and stewards to save others souls being LARPed in a secular world.

Why do I have to care about inside these machines and not just the machines (organic or synthetic)?

There are separate needs due to physics that we cannot let our imaginations of unfettered freedom disabuse us of.

That will lead to mistrust; if moral relativism is fine for anti-vaxxers, why not open hostility? My biology cannot control itself in all situations.

We don’t let a chainsaw wielding psycho live in his own world. That’s based on real world observation of the outcomes.

How is viral transmission that can be measured physically, even though it requires some specific tools, be considered any less violent towards others than a chainsaw wielding knob? Our evidence comes from the same observable space as our evidence a chainsaw wielding knob is unsafe.

Philosophical wankery does not change the physical truth.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#82

Post by roamerz »

invokestatic wrote: post #36
bko wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition to accepting Medicare seems pretty reasonable to me. That's just a backdoor for giving more power to the federal branch. Its like 'interstate commerce' where anything that has interstate implications (pretty much everything) can be influenced by the federal government. What if an anti-abortion president elected someone to this board and told them that no health ca…

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 makes a law or rule that infringes on someone’s freedom that person should be charged and punished for treason. I would think that you would see so many fewer laws a much stronger and law abiding Country.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#83

Post by [deleted] »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #59
belltaco wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are healthcare workers. Jobs have requirements. They're free to quit instead of increasing the dangers of disease for their sick and older patients who are at highest risk for covid. No one is controlling their body any more than making it show up at work in order to get paid. Coal miners are forced to work in dangerous conditions around the world in order to keep their job. Getting a vaccine is far less risk,…

so you'd be cool with employers banning employees who get an abortion. something, something, consequences.

[deleted]

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#84

Post by adrr »

bko wrote: post #28
invokestatic wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s actually reasonable for an agency (CMS) to decide eligibility criteria for receiving federal Medicare and Medicaid dollars. This was authority granted to the agency by Congress. Requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition to accepting Medicare seems pretty reasonable to me. Just as I would hope hospitals need to meet basic care standards to be eligible as well. Congress often delegates their powe…

> Requiring employees to be vaccinated as a condition to accepting Medicare seems pretty reasonable to me. That's just a backdoor for giving more power to the federal branch. Its like 'interstate commerce' where anything that has interstate implications (pretty much everything) can be influenced by the federal government. What if an anti-abortion president elected someone to this board and told them that no health ca…

Commerce clause is a valid reason for federal government to make rules. Imagine each state having their own EPA with their own rules and regulations. Or each state had their own FAA. Or OSHA. It would kill interstate commerce because it would be too costly for businesses to operate at the national level.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#85

Post by shadowgovt »

joshuamorton wrote: post #78
loudtieblahblah wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you'd be cool with employers banning employees who get an abortion. something, something, consequences.

That's actually quite likely legal already. If expect there are certain Catholic organizations who would fire you if you admitted to having had an abortion.

Your intuition is correct (in that there's no over-arching precedent or Constitutionally-derived right that makes it illegal), but it's specifically banned under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as per a 1978 law modifying the act. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/pregnancy-discrimination-act-1...

... Which goes to the court ruling that's the topic of the article: Congress has the power to decide these issues.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#86

Post by gopalv »

belltaco wrote: post #50
roamerz wrote: post #45

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.

These are healthcare workers. Jobs have requirements. They're free to quit instead of increasing the dangers of disease for their sick and older patients who are at highest risk for covid. No one is controlling their body any more than making it show up at work in order to get paid. Coal miners are forced to work in dangerous conditions around the world in order to keep their job. Getting a vaccine is far less risk,…

> Jobs have requirements

Most of the argument is whether this requirement is in the "employee must wash hands before surgery" category, which is about the patients' right to be safe not the employee's (in theory the patients didn't "choose" to be there).

The people complaining are reacting as if the ruling sounds like "male high school teachers get vasectomies, to keep teenage pregnancies down", because the effects are "permanent, * upto six months" and directly to your body without it being an on-the-job requirement.

The part that makes me leery is that these sort of "are your vaccines upto-date" checklists have always existed, but this time it is controversial (or maybe it was for MMR - but it wasn't news).

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#87

Post by joshuamorton »

jaywalk wrote: post #52
runako wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote of 55-44 (with five R votes). The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. What principle would be involved in requiring Congress to execute its powers in a different manner (i.e. by not delegating), simply because one does not like the outcome in this case? Who would decide which powers Cong…

> The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. The courts clearly disagree with you.

No they don't. They've issued an injunction while they decide.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#88

Post by willcipriano »

adrr wrote: post #73
bko wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to what types of medical orders are allowed to be given to patients Suppose an anti-abortion president gets elected and he elects someone as head and tells them that health care providers that accept medicare or medicaid cannot provide abortions. Not making it illegal per-se, but just for the providers that accept medicare or medicaid for any of their services. You okay with this as well?

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.

Ehh constructional right is a bit strong.

The supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment[0], has somewhere hidden within it a right to privacy. This right to privacy appearently applies exclusively to abortion, as warrentless wiretapping of every US citizen has been determined not to be a constitutional violation.

I find it funny that they can find a right to privacy in the 14th, but give the thumbs up to civil asset forfeiture that directly contradicts the text and is a obvious violation. They seem to make things up as they go along depending on what is politically expedient.

[0]https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#89

Post by runako »

jaywalk wrote: post #52
runako wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is a Senate confirmed position - she was approved with a vote of 55-44 (with five R votes). The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. What principle would be involved in requiring Congress to execute its powers in a different manner (i.e. by not delegating), simply because one does not like the outcome in this case? Who would decide which powers Cong…

> The elected representatives chose to delegate this power to the person they approved as the head of CMS. The courts clearly disagree with you.

They haven't decided yet, but it sometimes happens that I disagree with a court ruling! Courts have known to get things wrong, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#90

Post by davidw »

hestefisk wrote: post #61

Whilst thousands of healthcare workers in the US —- those who are supposed to be proponents of public health measures and rational, scientific thinking - refuse to get vaccinated, ultimately resulting in stockpiles of vaccines getting destroyed … people in third world countries cannot get adequate access to vaccines. This is madness.

After 6 years back in the US, I'm starting to get a bit of a 'gut feeling' that it's time to get out again.
Post reply on HN