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

81–90 of 443 posts

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

#81

Post by HWR_14 »

SllX wrote: post #69
phpisthebest wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That’s easy: it’s not our guy! It’s those other guys!

I mean, that has certainly been true for me, and many other people. I sent someone to Congress I liked. Congress then has a wide spectrum of people who end up doing whatever a small group decides (this term, whatever Manchin and Sinema want). It's pretty easy to like your guy but not the end results of the process or the body as a whole that produced it.

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

#82

Post by hash872 »

I've been thinking a lot about judicial review in common law democracies recently, and I tentatively think a better system would be to vastly expand the number of judges that are involved in making a decision. Example, you'd still have a tiered court system, and your case would still be heard in front of say a 3-9 panel appeals court- but after they write their decisions, a couple hundred other appeals judges at the same level get to a simple cast up or down vote on the decision, remotely. That way the case is decided by a larger, more stable pool of qualified judges- it's not like 1 judge dies, is replaced by the other party, and now that appeals court starts issuing totally partisan decisions the other way on a 5-4 vote.

It would hopefully make the judiciary overall less partisan, less of a high-stakes affair to nominate an appeals judge, and less swinging back and forth between 5-4 Democratic or Republican votes

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

#83

Post by colechristensen »

hash872 wrote: post #82

I've been thinking a lot about judicial review in common law democracies recently, and I tentatively think a better system would be to vastly expand the number of judges that are involved in making a decision. Example, you'd still have a tiered court system, and your case would still be heard in front of say a 3-9 panel appeals court- but after they write their decisions, a couple hundred other appeals judges at the…

I have a feeling this would make things considerably more political.

If you don’t like what judges decide, get people elected who will write things clearly into law. If they can’t do that, it sucks, go fix the political situation and stop trying to fix that dysfunction by making major systematic changes.

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

#84

Post by hammock »

beambot wrote: post #53
toast0 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, there's political theory and economics can act like "utility" drives all things, but at the end of the day, it's the threat of some sort of violently bad outcome that keeps society in check. Being incarcerated or dead is very low utility for most people ;)

Gotta DeMorgan's that statement to capture the true essence: Being not-incarcerated and not-dead is high utility for most people.

Free and alive (life and liberty)

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

#85

Post by rosywoozlechan »

hash872 wrote: post #82

I've been thinking a lot about judicial review in common law democracies recently, and I tentatively think a better system would be to vastly expand the number of judges that are involved in making a decision. Example, you'd still have a tiered court system, and your case would still be heard in front of say a 3-9 panel appeals court- but after they write their decisions, a couple hundred other appeals judges at the…

I think you're just describing court packing because maybe you disagree with the outcome based on your partisan politics?

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

#86

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

tptacek wrote: post #20

This is a confusing headline. The judgement here is in NY state court, and pertains to employees of and in the City of New York, which enacted a vaccine requirement for employees of the city and later private employers in the city. Months later, Eric Adams was elected mayor of NYC, and he issued an executive order exempting athletes, performers, and artists from the mandate. Petitioners sued, saying that the mandate…

Eric Adams' "performers and sports players" exemption was specifically to allow Broadway to re-open and to allow Kyrie Irving to play in Brooklyn.

The whole thing was a farce anyway so it doesn't matter.

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

#87

Post by colechristensen »

googlryas wrote: post #77
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…

The separate branches of government limit each other, but they can't impose punishments on the other. That's up to the electorate.

They can, if the laws are written with criminal consequences. Most are not, with good reason. So many things which end up in courts just aren’t clear enough for the outcome to be obvious.

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

#88

Post by hammock »

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,…

More like saying engineers - who, like elected officials, take an oath - ought to suffer consequences if say a bridge, whose plans they signed, collapses.

Not agreeing or disagreeing. Merely adjusting the analogy

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

#90

Post by shadowgovt »

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 general, such consequences would be applied by the public. If the people feel that the executive overreached and is no longer honoring their oath, the people don't re-elect that executive. There are some exceptions (such as the impeachment power of the federal Congress), but in a system where the public elects the executive, the last recourse of a bad executive is the public's right to elect someone else. And even in cases like the power of congressional impeachment, the punishment they can extend is removal from office and nothing more.

No, if someone broke the law in the process of exercising the executive authority, that's a different issue. But we don't generally have laws of the form "the executive is not allowed to infringe on non-fundamental liberties during an emergency," because history shows that emergencies happen and sometimes people just have to be told what to do (arguably, that's one of the reasons we bother to have an executive at various levels of government).

Post reply on HN