Just listened to the Oral Arguments on the Stay of the Mandates....

not sure this is political post or not. Wanted it on Keiths board but figured it could turn political.

They handled each mandates separately (OSHA and CMS). And Different attorney's on both sides argued the cases (so 4, actually 5 attorneys since the CMS plaintiff had 2 attorneys arguing, 1 much more effective than the other)

The OSHA Mandates seemed much more likely to be Stayed in my opinion. I may prove my ignorance when they rule by Monday but the court seemed, based on questions and answers, much more likely to put in a stay on enforcement of the OSHA mandates based on the limit on OSHA power. The 3 liberal judges were pretty much on their normal lane. I will say Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were hard on both sides but I think leaned to the side against OSHA. Thomas was typical this is overreach.


The CMS mandate stuff was not as clear. First, the first attorney arguing the case for the States seemed very ill prepared for the line of questioning. He stumbled a lot. the 2nd attorney from LA (called her General) was much more effective in representing the states position but I think the damage had already been done by the first attorney.

The gist of the arguing had to do around the CMS Role of health and welfare of Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Argued around how they can mandate use of gloves, masks, sterilization of instruments, height of beds, types of food and snacks etc. and if they can mandate/require states to ensure safety in those areas why not a vaccine to transmit disease?

The first attorney did say all those things can be removed (masks, gloves, gowns etc) when you leave work but a vaccine can not be undone when you leave work. He is right. But not sure the justices heard that.

I would have argued material breach of contract between states and Fed. Gov as the States are the contractor and this is a position that CMS has never taken before...one that determines who gets to provide services, a power usually vested within the state programs.

I am very concerned. Out of an 89 Bed facility I am already down to 45 beds due to staffing. At this point, 26% of my staff are still not vaccinated. And they are adamant. They can leave and have options, particularly if the OSHA mandate is overturned.

This is an argument they did not make. In rural and small settings, particularly in Nursing Homes and MH Residential care facilities, the paraprofessionals make up the bulk of our staffing and those are the same population that other industries are trying to hire. We will be creating a Nursing home and RTC Staffing crisis if this is upheld. I will have no choice but to be out of compliance.

Who was the Judge that during the OSHA discussion indicated that the omicron is more deadly than the original version and also stated that there are a 100k kid deathly sick and on ventilators.
Of course she was a liberal judge.
Guess she gets her information from CNN.
The OSHA requirements will really hurt businesses with extra cost plus employment losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catmanjack

Who was the Judge that during the OSHA discussion indicated that the omicron is more deadly than the original version and also stated that there are a 100k kid deathly sick and on ventilators.
Of course she was a liberal judge.
Guess she gets her information from CNN.
The OSHA requirements will really hurt businesses with extra cost plus employment losses.

---

Supreme justice Sotomayor.

Yes that was her, just voting and pushing liberal garbage.
The judicial system is a shell of itself.

She and Rashida Tlaib are liberal, socialist twins

Ruining American one vote at a time!

Introducing non-facts not in evidence.

Mandate blocked

Partially at least. Medicaid mandate can continue, but not the OSHA.

Was a pretty reasoned approach by SCOTUS. They may have to move out of Washington, b/c reason is not a good fit with that city these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Partially at least. Medicaid mandate can continue, but not the OSHA.

Was a pretty reasoned approach by SCOTUS. They may have to move out of Washington, b/c reason is not a good fit with that city these days.

---

Roberts and Kavanaugh voted with the 3 liberal sheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Roberts and Kavanaugh voted with the 3 liberal sheep

---

Very disappointed in Kavanaugh. I expected it from Roberts.

Kavanaugh tilted his hand last friday. His vote was not unexpected by me based on his question. He really struggled understanding why the CMS case was being argued because none of the major hospitals and systems were part of the suit. For you lawyers, is the term nexus?

In my mind he forgot the role of SCOTUS ...to protect the rights of the individuals.

I literally may lose 20% of my staff in the next month.. And that means Autistic children will have to go to a State hospital...but oh wait, they cant....they only have 11 beds open because of staffing issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Partially at least. Medicaid mandate can continue, but not the OSHA.

Was a pretty reasoned approach by SCOTUS. They may have to move out of Washington, b/c reason is not a good fit with that city these days.

---

Sorry Chuck, it was not reasoned....opposite in my mind. Either the government has the power to mandate or it doesnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirginiaCat

Sorry Chuck, it was not reasoned....opposite in my mind. Either the government has the power to mandate or it doesnt.

---

it is reasoned in my view (and I get why it isn't in yours), but I don't agree with it.

The question is how far medicaid/medicare can go, and the sad truth is they've already gone so far it's hard to distinguish one more step. I don't like that, but the precedent exists.

I'm all for getting rid of them in their current form, and despise government regulation as much as about anyone, but from the standpoint of the precedent in front of them I get the decision.

Now, I think it's debatable in the medicaid case, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent, but it was not a party political vote and that's why I called it reasoned.

I can still disagree with the reasoning.

The OSHA overstep was easy, and you still saw 3 justices think it was all fine to just ignore the Constitution and Congressional laws, but the legal case against the medicaid/medicare situation is much more murky. Congress has given much broader authority there, and also much broader authority has been taken without protest now for decades.

I'm not defending the decision, just saying that they did look at the legal situation. Personally I"m more of a Clarence Thomas fan, who seems to generally think we need to unwind a whole lot of government, and I'm all for it.

As for the impact on medical facilities of all kinds, it will be very damaging I have no doubt. And the Democrats are going to pay dearly for it too. B/c this will, as you know, blow up in our face and lead to worse medical and senior care, not better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

it is reasoned in my view (and I get why it isn't in yours), but I don't agree with it.

The question is how far medicaid/medicare can go, and the sad truth is they've already gone so far it's hard to distinguish one more step. I don't like that, but the precedent exists.

I'm all for getting rid of them in their current form, and despise government regulation as much as about anyone, but from the standpoint of the precedent in front of them I get the decision.

Now, I think it's debatable in the medicaid case, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent, but it was not a party political vote and that's why I called it reasoned.

I can still disagree with the reasoning.

The OSHA overstep was easy, and you still saw 3 justices think it was all fine to just ignore the Constitution and Congressional laws, but the legal case against the medicaid/medicare situation is much more murky. Congress has given much broader authority there, and also much broader authority has been taken without protest now for decades.

I'm not defending the decision, just saying that they did look at the legal situation. Personally I"m more of a Clarence Thomas fan, who seems to generally think we need to unwind a whole lot of government, and I'm all for it.

As for the impact on medical facilities of all kinds, it will be very damaging I have no doubt. And the Democrats are going to pay dearly for it too. B/c this will, as you know, blow up in our face and lead to worse medical and senior care, not better.

---

Actually, fully agree with you. I think Kavanaugh's holdup was he did not see a Nexus from the States, he wanted to see providers arguing against the Mandate and felt that the states themselves did not have Nexus (or at least enough of it) to be challenging the CMS Mandate position.

My argument is that SCOTUS should be weighing the rights of the individual in every case as it relates to and Federal Department power or decision...and SCOTUS did not do that in this case so those employees that do not have millions (Billions) to have legal representation were silenced .. and the precedent is frightening to me.

This was going to be huge and could have impacted company’s in so many ways but the cost just for 1 weeks testing where I work was going to be 5k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

it is reasoned in my view (and I get why it isn't in yours), but I don't agree with it.

The question is how far medicaid/medicare can go, and the sad truth is they've already gone so far it's hard to distinguish one more step. I don't like that, but the precedent exists.

I'm all for getting rid of them in their current form, and despise government regulation as much as about anyone, but from the standpoint of the precedent in front of them I get the decision.

Now, I think it's debatable in the medicaid case, and I think it's a very dangerous precedent, but it was not a party political vote and that's why I called it reasoned.

I can still disagree with the reasoning.

The OSHA overstep was easy, and you still saw 3 justices think it was all fine to just ignore the Constitution and Congressional laws, but the legal case against the medicaid/medicare situation is much more murky. Congress has given much broader authority there, and also much broader authority has been taken without protest now for decades.

I'm not defending the decision, just saying that they did look at the legal situation. Personally I"m more of a Clarence Thomas fan, who seems to generally think we need to unwind a whole lot of government, and I'm all for it.

As for the impact on medical facilities of all kinds, it will be very damaging I have no doubt. And the Democrats are going to pay dearly for it too. B/c this will, as you know, blow up in our face and lead to worse medical and senior care, not better.

---

Pandora's box... how far can Medicare and medicaid go? Will see when the Republicans gain control and mandate drug testing for those who receive medicaide!medicaid! The same excuse for a covid mandate can be used for drug screening.

Now just about everything can be tied to you or me getting SS or being covered ny Medicare.

It was a horrible decision because of the ubiquity of federal payments in our lives.

But it also could be cited for anything the govt does. Drivers licenses, fishing licenses, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Now just about everything can be tied to you or me getting SS or being covered ny Medicare.

It was a horrible decision because of the ubiquity of federal payments in our lives.

But it also could be cited for anything the govt does. Drivers licenses, fishing licenses, for example.

---

Yes...pandora's box

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Pandora's box... how far can Medicare and medicaid go? Will see when the Republicans gain control and mandate drug testing for those who receive medicaide!medicaid! The same excuse for a covid mandate can be used for drug screening.

---

You get zero argument from me. I think the whole thing has to be unwound. As I said I agree with Thomas and Aito. My point is that, other than the 3 liberals who believe they can legislate from the bench, that it was not a political decision.

At the end that's what we want from SCOTUS, non-political decision making. We may not agree, but it needs to remain non-political.

Personally I wish Thomas had the votes to do what he clearly wants, which is to unwind about 60 years of government overreach, including Medicaid/Medicare.

And VaCat's point is IMO the best one, and unfortunately not the best made one given that the case was brought by state governments: that the rights of the individuals here are much more at risk than with other Medicare/Medicaid requirements.

Requiring a hospital worker to wash hands, wear gloves, etc. all ends when they go home. Their liberty and their lives are not impacted by those requirements. Requiring a vaccine absolutely invades their body and clearly is much farther reaching in their lives than on the job requirements for performance.

that argument was made weakly, and should have been the main focus of the lawsuit, esp. before this particular set of jurists.

I would have liked for them to pick up that ball themselves, but they didn't. that kind of decision could become precedent for other questions of rights.

I disagree with their conclusions, but I respect the process, other than for the 3 leftists, who firmly believe the judiciary can legislate and that the ends justify the means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

Now just about everything can be tied to you or me getting SS or being covered ny Medicare.

It was a horrible decision because of the ubiquity of federal payments in our lives.

But it also could be cited for anything the govt does. Drivers licenses, fishing licenses, for example.

---

That's already the case. See seat belt and helmet laws.

I think both are patently unconstitutional, and you'd probably get the 3 most conservative justices to agree, but that's a pretty big step, and The Court hates making those kinds of big leaps all at once. Thomas is about the only justice who is willing to do that it seems.

If you ask me this country is already doomed barring a seismic shift event (see what they want to do with elections). Socialists have strong influence if not control over one of our two major parties as well as most all of our academic institutions, and the Fourth Estate has become a propaganda machine which would make any dictator proud. Not sure how we come back from this position to restore a basic belief in liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

You get zero argument from me. I think the whole thing has to be unwound. As I said I agree with Thomas and Aito. My point is that, other than the 3 liberals who believe they can legislate from the bench, that it was not a political decision.

At the end that's what we want from SCOTUS, non-political decision making. We may not agree, but it needs to remain non-political.

Personally I wish Thomas had the votes to do what he clearly wants, which is to unwind about 60 years of government overreach, including Medicaid/Medicare.

And VaCat's point is IMO the best one, and unfortunately not the best made one given that the case was brought by state governments: that the rights of the individuals here are much more at risk than with other Medicare/Medicaid requirements.

Requiring a hospital worker to wash hands, wear gloves, etc. all ends when they go home. Their liberty and their lives are not impacted by those requirements. Requiring a vaccine absolutely invades their body and clearly is much farther reaching in their lives than on the job requirements for performance.

that argument was made weakly, and should have been the main focus of the lawsuit, esp. before this particular set of jurists.

I would have liked for them to pick up that ball themselves, but they didn't. that kind of decision could become precedent for other questions of rights.

I disagree with their conclusions, but I respect the process, other than for the 3 leftists, who firmly believe the judiciary can legislate and that the ends justify the means.

---

Well, we all have pipe dreams. Until the liberal block of Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan decide to look at the Constitution and based their decisions on that, it will remain political. You often see the conservative justices...and the CINO (conservative in name only) CJ of SCOTUS decide outside the political lines..... as Robert's did to save Obama care, and Kavanaugh does here..... but I recall no instances where the left leaners step across. In fact I recall an arguement once I had with a liberal where it was a clear decision based on the Constitution, even the person I was debating agreed it was red letter, yet the three voted as a block of dissent.

Add when you have UNINFORMED justices who can't get the facts right, apparently pulling her (Sotomayor) Covid "facts" from CNN.... you reap what you sow. The approval process has members of the GOP basing their confirmation votes on record when Obama puts up a nomination whereas Dems simply vote NO. Look at how the votes went for Somayor and Kagen compared to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barret. Look at how many from the other side voted to confirm.