• [The Mandate's] promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority (p. 7).The decision is 22 pages long and can be read here or one can listen to a discussion here (click on "Watch on YouTube"):
• [S]ociety’s interest in slowing the spread of COVID-19 “cannot qualify as [compelling] forever,” for “[i]f human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency” (p. 7, ftn 10).
• [T]he Mandate is a one-sizefits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address (p. 8).
• Indeed, underinclusiveness of this sort [exempting employers of less than 100 employees from the Mandate] is often regarded as a telltale sign that the government’s interest in enacting a liberty-restraining pronouncement is not in fact “compelling.” ... The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary. (p. 15).
• [T]he Mandate flunks a cost-benefit analysis here (p. 16).
• In sum, the Mandate would far exceed current constitutional authority (p. 17).
• It is clear that a denial of the petitioners’ proposed stay would do them irreparable harm. ... For the individual petitioners, the loss of constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of time . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” ... / The Mandate places an immediate and irreversible imprint on all covered employers in America, and “complying with a regulation later held invalid almost always produces the irreparable harm of nonrecoverable compliance costs” (pp. 18-19).
• Moreover, any abstract “harm” a stay might cause the Agency pales in comparison and importance to the harms the absence of a stay threatens to cause countless individuals and companies (pp. 19-20).
• The public interest is also served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials (p. 20).
• In seeking to [make health policy] here, OSHA runs afoul of the statute from which it draws its power and, likely, violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty (p. 20).
• For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard”22 remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.23
In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order (pp. 20-21, bold emphasis added.).
December 23 UPDATE: Whoops, it seems that the 6th Circuit, to the numeric delight of the powers, has stayed the STAY. So, listen then to this and activate:
Activate Humanity: 5 Circuit... Circus
(Activate Humanity | Nov 16, 2021 | Time 51:51 min. | for Court decision begin circa minute 5:30) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv22KPm3bpY&t=5s
See also www.activatehumanity.com
Since real Science is supposed to be about open debate and discernment, here is a narrative-believer's opinion about the 5th Circuit decision and his plea to the 6th: https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/02/fifth-circuit-court-got-science-wrong-on-osha-vaccination-mandate/
Supreme Court Action
David Martin World | Dec 21, 2021 | Time 27:54 min) at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s3EUksu2Fw
---------------------------------------------/
1. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60845-CV0.pdf
