Quote (Goomshill @ 10 Sep 2021 19:46)
I mean its just the basic review of "congress has delegated OSHA to do literally anything it wants with unlimited scope" and "actually courts have struck down stuff like this in the past"
There's clearly no congressional authorization for such a mandate, and its not clear if congress even has such jurisdiction or if it would fall on state/local governments, but even besides long term doubts over the survival of chevron doctrine and the open-ended executive bureaucracy, there's a pretty good history of courts striking down overly broad mandates citing such ambiguous authorities. I mean, just look at the list of ETS cases that french cites. Covid-19 is a blatant outlier, every other case is a physical compound / chemical, which is what the law was written about and intended. You don't have to be an originalist to see the problem with taking a law that gives OSHA authority to regulate newly discovered chemicals prior to rigorous testing to determine final regulatory schemes, and using it to pass a social policy mandate clearly aimed at public health that has dick all to do with employers. His order doesn't even fill the basic criterion of the ETS statute itself that demands exceptions for employers who show reasonable safeguards are already in place. This was never a law that delegated any authority to regulate communicable disease prevention measures, and OSHA isn't even the proper federal agency to regulate public health to begin with. Its not like Biden can deny it and pretend this is solely an issue of employee safety, since he announced it with that speech.
biden doesnt need any of this. one of these two will happen as i posted before:
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82747482&f=119&p=573324779#p5733247791. Roberts will cite the individual mandate again as reason why
2. if that doesn’t work Kavanaugh will say even though it’s unconstitutional, it’s temporary and its more harm than good to do anything otherwise.