Have a look at vivabarneslaw.locals.com for a form letter that any worker can give his employer to demand a religious exemption from any vax requirement. They also have a good attorney's explanation of why such requirements are illegal: the Nuremberg Code bans them.

When I saw the Washington Post this morning I was like noooo....

Please Republicans, please pick a nice moderate I can live with.

There is also the issue of supply. The labs that can do this testing are slammed with just the tests public schools are requiring of students. They flat can't provide this volume of testing. You may be looking at a 3-4 week wait for results.

"Please Republicans, please pick a nice moderate I can live with." ~NicoleK

Why don't you ask the Democrats for that? I get why this time. But I don't remember any such laments when a Republican is president.

@NicoleK: Please Republicans, please pick a nice moderate I can live with.
___________

The fallacy in this is that every republican gets branded an extremist. Meanwhile, Obama and Biden (and Hillary) ARE extremists.

Say what you will about Trump, but I would trade what we have in for Trump's mean tweaks, cheap gas, and freedom right now... Trump IS a moderate compared to anything the democrats have offered up in the last two decades.

Regarding free tests. Yeah, they're not so much free. A friend went to get tested and they needed his insurance info so it's getting charged back to insurance somehow. If folks don't have insurance, they are being told how to get gov't insurance.

I'm a remote employee and really have no intention of either getting a jab or having a swab put up my nose once a week to scrape my brain. That's a huge reason I chose this job. Some opportunities have crossed my email and I've just hit delete when I see vaxx or test requirements.

@Trust--I'm hearing that a lot from my liberal friends. Just wait until fed.gov decides to hit interstate travel like Australia.

If McCain hadn't picked Palin, it would have been a tough decision for me. The Republicans have plenty of people who moderate Dems could go for.

If McCain hadn't picked Palin, it would have been a tough decision for me. The Republicans have plenty of people who moderate Dems could go for.

NicoleK at September 11, 2021 9:37 AM

Like who?

Palin was the most successful test run for the lies the media was willing to tell about Trump.
Trump governed essentially as a moderate Democrat (as you claim to be). What he wasn't, and isn’t, is a member of great bipartisan uniparty grift.

You are going to reflexively look for a justification to vote for the lefty candidate, because that’s who you are.

"Wickens Herzer Panza"

I guess we should be glad it isn't Wolfram & Hart.

Just wait until fed.gov decides to hit interstate travel like Australia.

Oh, that'll be fun. Especially when long haul truckers go on strike. I fully expect them to be exempted from that restriction, I just don't see them doing nothing.

Trump pulled out of the climate accords and nominated anti-choice judges, how is he a moderate Democrat?

Trump pulled out of the climate accords and nominated anti-choice judges, how is he a moderate Democrat?

NicoleK at September 11, 2021 11:04 AM

You need to read up on JFK.

The climate accords were nothing more than an attempt by the Europeans to kneecap American industry while they studiously ignore the fact that Communist China opens one new coal fired power plant every week.

Ever been in Beijing? You really should visit to see what the air looks like. And yes, you can see it, even inside the airport.

Meanwhile US emissions have gone steadily down thanks to keeping the pollution spewing in Asia. Added bonus: slave labor undercutting American workers.

Has the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade yet? Hah, I didn’t think so. Not going to happen. Although it was a badly decided case that should never have been ruled on by the court. Trump appointed judges that are constitutional scholars. So far, I’m reasonably pleased. They stay in their lane.

You are pro choice are you? My body, my choice? So no forced vaccinations of experimental leaky vaccines, right? The Supreme Court may protect us from this, and if they don’t, watch out for the next time a power mad administration tries to make an end run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It can get uglier, and probably will.

The notion that Trump was the political equivalent of a "moderate democrat" has to be the most insane thing I have seen posted here in at least a month.

The notion that Trump was the political equivalent of a "moderate democrat" has to be the most insane thing I have seen posted here in at least a month.

Artemis at September 11, 2021 12:58 PM

We all know that American history and political science is well outside your wheelhouse. No need to remind us how little you know about the various historical platforms of the parties and the politicians.

https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/democrats-history-on-abortion

"The Republicans have plenty of people who moderate Dems could go for."

Name them then stick with them once mainstream media calls them racist Nazis 100 times.
McCain was getting trashed as racist long before Pelosi joined him.
Romni? may want to watch some attacks on his character when he was running for president.

Sorry the press releases for the Republican candidate are already written, white supremacist, Nazi, the worst person ever. just need a name to add in.
Republicans have a black candidate from South Central running, he gets attacked by someone in a gorilla mask. Who gets called racist and white supremacist, the black candidate.

For the Dem side I'd gladly shake Tulsi Gabbards hand. She was sane and not openly anti-American. More than can say for anyone else on the Dem stage.

To expand what Joe J said, just look at how Larry Elder is being called a black nazi.

Yes, Perry, I am against forced vaccinations, sorry to blow your stereotypes.

Oh, Joe! I wanted Tulsi so much!

I'd vote for Weld or Romney. Not over Tulsi. But maybe over Biden, depending on the debates. Though not if they chose a Trump or Palin as a running mate.

Perry, Roe is already dead. It apparently doesn't apply in Texas.

Perry, Roe is already dead. It apparently doesn't apply in Texas.

NicoleK at September 11, 2021 9:25 PM

You need to read the Roe v. Wade decision. It doesn’t say what you apparently think it says.

Essentially the states have the right to regulate abortion in the second and third trimester. Whether the Texas law is constitutional has not been determined by the Supreme court yet.

The Texas law doesn't deal with the second and third trimester.

The Supreme Court decided not to take the case. Effectively letting it stand.

"I'd vote for Weld or Romney." ~NicoleK

I don't believe you. NicoleK your position is roughly the same as Amy's. You'll vote for any Republican who isn't running or can't win. Once it looks like they could get elected you find some random reason you can't vote for them.

"Yes, Perry, I am against forced vaccinations, sorry to blow your stereotypes." ~NicoleK

Doesn't matter. You are a solid D vote. The only question is if you do or don't vote, not who you will vote for. That the Democrat party is fully for forced vaccinations and you aren't doesn't change things.

Like it or not Biden is a moderate Democrat. If you are looking to vote for one Biden is your guy. If you don't like Biden then maybe you aren't a moderate Democrat.

I... HAVE voted for Weld.

Crap, no I didn't, I was too young, got my dates mixed up but I absolutely supported him, all the Dems I knew voted for him, especially the first time when the other option was Silber who we all hated.

I'd pick him over Biden. I wouldn't pick him over Tulsi.

Biden's pissed me off with his support of male rapists in women's prisons, men in women's sports, etc. So I'm looking for other options.

The other options need to be serious about fighting climate change AND dealing with that which is going to occur anyways, and pro-choice, at a bare minimum.

But Ben, maybe your comment gets to the heart of the matter. The Dems assume the Nicoles of the world will always vote Dem and for the most part we do. And that is the problem. Because then they start pulling random shit like supporting riots and things.

And I don't know what to think, because the rhetoric from a lot of my friends at home is getting increasingly militant.

I... HAVE voted for Weld.

NicoleK at September 12, 2021 9:39 AM

Immaterial. It isn’t the person, it’s the whole corrupt uniparty of which Weld is a member in good standing,

“The other options need to be serious about fighting climate change”

I’m curious as to what you would view as *fighting* climate change? For the Democratic Party, and many Republicans fighting climate change is taking money from middle class Americans and throwing it at rich people who happen to govern poor countries with at least half kicked back to them in the form of campaign contributions and other bribes.

Stern words maybe? Promises which are never kept? A bunch of fucking idiots nod in agreement at the dems plans to fight climate change. I want to know specifically what you envision, as being both reasonable and effective based on how little we know about the causation and the long term effects.

Short of nuking The CCP I’m not seeing anything promising.

"But Ben, maybe your comment gets to the heart of the matter. The Dems assume the Nicoles of the world will always vote Dem and for the most part we do. And that is the problem. Because then they start pulling random shit like supporting riots and things." ~NicoleK

That is the issue. You are considered a solid vote with no real alternatives. Your 'support' for Weld is irrelevant. He had no chance of getting elected. Your support is only a protest support. If he actually could get elected as a Republican I don't believe you or Amy would actually vote for him. And neither does the Democrat party. As such there is no reason to cater to your needs, by either party. Your vote is guaranteed. An unhappy NicoleK just doesn't impact elections.

I think you're forgetting he won several elections in a true blue state, but you're right, it doesn't matter, because the Republicans are not going to nominate him.

The thing is, I think there are lot of unhappy Nicoles and Amys out there. As long as the Republicans keep nominating people who go around insulting people all the time, the Dems are safe. I think they are pushing their luck, though.

I dunno, I'll see who the Republicans come up with. Hell, maybe Joe won't run for re-election!

Perry Says:

"We all know that American history and political science is well outside your wheelhouse. No need to remind us how little you know about the various historical platforms of the parties and the politicians."

Most people know enough about politics to understand that moderate democrats would not prioritize the following legislative items:

1 - Putting conservative justices on the courts.
2 - Reducing taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

Those were the primary legislative accomplishments and focus for Trump.

Those are not the goals of any moderate democrat.

That you seem to think Trump is the equivalent of a moderate democrat despite this focus demonstrates that your knowledge and understanding of politics is well below average... I'd even call it dimwitted.

This isn't a close call here. Trump's primary goals and accomplishments were consistent with the Republican party platform and conservative goals in general.

NicoleK, the last few election have shown unhappy Nicoles and Amys don't matter. You won't vote for a Romney when he is the candidate. You will complain you can't vote for him when he isn't the candidate. Your complaint here proves my point. Rude Democrats get your vote. It is only rude Republicans that don't.

As long as the Republicans keep nominating people who go around insulting people all the time, the Dems are safe. ~ NicoleK at September 12, 2021 9:24 PM

I think the problem here, Nicole, is that you're putting the burden of nominating a moderate entirely upon the Republican Party.

The only seeming left-of-center moderate Democrat running for election in the 2020 contest was Tulsi, and she got only two delegates (two more than the VP) before the party leadership made sure she couldn't continue. The Democrats don't want a moderate either, and won't let one become the nominee.

As a result, we have a president who believes that he can rule by executive decree through his regulatory agencies - OSHA, the CDC, etc. Meanwhile, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader cheer him on as he blatantly usurps Congress' authority - all because they know they cannot get the party's preferred policies passed in a divided Congress. So, they'll sacrifice government of the people on the altar of party ideology.

We now have a CDC-enacted eviction moratorium that has once-already been shot down by the Supreme Court. We're looking at a vaccine mandate that stretches the intended limits of OSHA's emergency powers under the 1970 Act.

Emergency temporary standards enacted under those powers have frequently been shot down by the Supreme Court as overreach, and this one looks like it will be, too. We have an administration that has admitted its policies are not going to pass Constitutional muster but has vowed to defend them.

If not shot down on Constitutional grounds, the vaccine mandate should be shot down on practical grounds. 40% of US workers work for companies with fewer than 100 employees. Roughly 60% of the US population constitutes the workforce. So, almost a quarter of the population is left unaffected by the vaccine mandate at the outset.

And, of course, the USPS, with its powerful employee union and 600,000 employees, is exempt from the vaccine mandate; as are the millions of third-world immigrants pouring into the country through now-porous borders.

In addition, Biden's threat to get elected officials who disagree with his policies "out of the way" is positively Stalin-esque in its totalitarian threat.

How's that "moderate" Democrat working out for you?

"As a result, we have a president who believes that he can rule by executive decree through his regulatory agencies - OSHA, the CDC, etc." ~ Conan

You're absolutely right. What I'm hoping for is whatever rules he makes, the country ignores them. This will end up in the higher courts, and if they don't hold up Constitutional limits on government power, the country is done for. This will turn into a hot culture war instead of a cold one.

Biden (or his handlers) made a huge miscalculation here, in an attempt to get the focus off of his unmitigated Afghan disaster. It isn't working. Instead, the list of his failures keeps growing and his reputation (such as it was) keeps descending into negative territory.

He's on track to be the worst POTUS we've ever had. If there was any cosmic justice, it would result in not a single Democrat being elected to office for the next decade. The Democrats foisted this demented old fart on us solely because Trump offended their delicate sensibilities, and they need to be held responsible.

Conan Says:

"As a result, we have a president who believes that he can rule by executive decree through his regulatory agencies - OSHA, the CDC, etc."

That is silly.

OSHA and the CDC have been making recommendations and regulations in the areas of public health since they were established.

These organizations were established by the legislative branch.

That you might not like a particular decision that OSHA or the CDC makes does not indicate they are exceeding their established authority.

Where exactly have OSHA or the CDC stepped out of bounds in consideration of long standing historical precedent and their legislatively established charter?

ruralcounsel says:

"This will end up in the higher courts, and if they don't hold up Constitutional limits on government power, the country is done for. This will turn into a hot culture war instead of a cold one."

Great... we'll add you to the list of nut jobs who insist that if they don't get what they want politically they are going to go out and murder people.

This isn't the way people who believe in democracy operate.

If you don't like things get out and peacefully protest, start up grass roots campaigns, support your candidates with donations and your votes.

These constant threats to assault the people you disagree with simply demonstrate that you don't believe in democracy in the first place.

You are losing elections because most people disagree with your perspective... threatening them with violence isn't going to win you any political points.

You're absolutely right. ~ ruralcounsel at September 13, 2021 9:49 AM

To be fair to Biden, he didn't start the trend. He did, however, put it on steroids.

Presidents have been trying to usurp Congress' functions for centuries. Modern presidents, from Obama onward, have freely usurped Congress' role in the functioning of our government. It's been a power grab, seeing presidents make laws instead of interpreting Congress' laws to fit their own agenda. "Stroke of the pen" and all that.

And Congress has been complicit in allowing presidents to do this. The last member of Congress who diligently defended Congress' prerogative from presidential over-reach was Robert Byrd, who died in 2010. Current Congressional figures seem satisfied to proselytize, preen, and politic without actually doing their jobs; content to play the Greek chorus.

========================================

That is silly. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 10:20 AM

Not silly at all, Artie.

The CDC issuing an eviction moratorium is well beyond the powers intended for it by the Act that created it. even the emergency powers.

The Supreme Court only let the Trump-era moratorium stand because it had an expiration date and specifically said that to extend it beyond the expiration date would require Congressional action, not further regulatory agency action.

Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act of 1944 gives the CDC quarantine and isolation authority. Using that authority, the CDC imposed an eviction moratorium until July 31, 2021. The Supreme Court allowed the moratorium to stand until its expiration, but said that continuing it beyond that would require Congressional action, that the PHSA was never intended to give the CDC unchecked power.

If the CDC can control rental property in the name of an "emergency," it can declare an emergency over almost anything and issue another decree. That was not what was intended when the CDC was created and granted those powers. Joe Biden even admitted as much when he issued the order, "not likely to pass constitutional muster."

As for OSHA issuing a vaccine mandate covering private companies, there is a legitimate argument to be made that this, like most other OSHA emergency temporary standards, is federal over-reach and will not pass constitutional muster. Regulatory agencies were intended to enforce Congressional legislation, not make up their own legislation at the whim of the president.

Broadly defining "emergency" powers is going to give us an authoritarian government if we are not diligent about curtailing the abuse of "emergency" powers by government agencies.

Remember that Adolf Hitler came to power on spurious and broadly-defined "emergency" authority. While Biden is not Hitler, the temptation for any president to exercise absolute power is too great to be left unchecked.

That's why Congressional oversight is imposed upon executive branch agencies - and why it is necessary.

========================================

These constant threats to assault the people you disagree with simply demonstrate that you don't believe in democracy in the first place. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 10:26 AM

And the near-constant calls by you for expansive federal authority "simply demonstrate" that you neither believe in nor understand American democracy.

Conan Says:

"As for OSHA issuing a vaccine mandate covering private companies, there is a legitimate argument to be made that this, like most other OSHA emergency temporary standards, is federal over-reach and will not pass constitutional muster. Regulatory agencies were intended to enforce Congressional legislation, not make up their own legislation at the whim of the president."

Except there is no "vaccine mandate" covering private companies.

Employees have an option to demonstrate they have been vaccinated or to be tested on a routine basis to prevent infection of others.

As for passing constitutional muster, I suggest you familiarize yourself with OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. This has been in place for decades and has very similar standards when dealing with vaccination for things like hepatitis B.

You can read more about it here:

https://www.texmed.org/template.aspx?id=1884

"OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard requires that employers offer the hepatitis B vaccination series to any employee who is reasonably anticipated to have exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials. The offer must be made within 10 days of employment and at no cost to the employee.

The only legitimate reasons that the hepatitis B vaccination may NOT have been completed by the employee are:

1 - The employee previously has received the series of three injections of hepatitis B vaccine, or six injections in the case of an employee who did not respond to the primary vaccination series.

2 - Antibody testing shows that the employee is immune. An employer can make prescreening for the antibody available to employees if there is no cost associated with such screening. Employees, however, do not have to accept any prescreening if they wish to begin the actual hepatitis vaccination.

3 - The vaccination cannot be given for medical reasons.

4 - The employee has signed a declination form.

If reasons 1, 2, or 3 are used as the basis for not providing the hepatitis B vaccination, the reason must be documented clearly in the employee's medical record. If the employee declines, then the signed declination form must be in the record. The easiest method to document properly why the hepatitis B vaccination was not given is simply to have the employee sign the declination form regardless of the reason. The declination form provides a clear and written record of why the vaccination was not performed."

OSHA has been regulating vaccine status of employees of private companies for a very long time now... and it was legislatively designed to do this job.

No one has been making a constitutional fuss about any of this until some red hat morons decided to politicize a pandemic.

"And the near-constant calls by you for expansive federal authority "simply demonstrate" that you neither believe in nor understand American democracy."

There is no expansion of federal authority here... the difference between you and I is that I have worked in laboratories in the past that required me to adhere to the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard where as you clearly haven't the slightest idea that this authority has been in active and in place for most if not all of your life.

None of this is new Conan.

Conan Says:

"That's why Congressional oversight is imposed upon executive branch agencies - and why it is necessary."

Unless of course they are trying to investigate an attack on the Capitol building and then it is just a partisan with hunt, right?

I seem to recall a recent someone in the executive branch declaring privilege to prevent any and all documents from being handed over to Congress and to prevent testimony before Congress from any members of the executive branch.

You defended that nonsense on a number of occasions.

I'm all for Congressional oversight... the issue for you in this case is that OSHA is on firm legal ground.

Should the courts decide to rule otherwise they would be ruling in opposition to decades of historical precedent.

I am not saying that is impossible because who knows that the current court will do these days... but OSHA stepping in with regulations to deal with a viral pandemic is not on in any sense an obvious a departure from its stated purview as defined by law.

Conan Says:

"The Supreme Court only let the Trump-era moratorium stand because it had an expiration date and specifically said that to extend it beyond the expiration date would require Congressional action, not further regulatory agency action."

Got it... when the Trump CDC extends a moratorium it is not executive branch overreach... but when the Biden administration extends the exact same policy it is overreach.

You are one funny guy.

Not a logical or rational guy... but a funny one for sure.

...the difference between you and I is that I have worked in laboratories in the past that required me to adhere to the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard where as you clearly haven't the slightest idea that this authority has been in active and in place for most if not all of your life. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 3:00 PM

You're comparing apples to oranges again, Artie.

Hepatitis B, Artie, is not an airborne virus. In the case of blood-borne pathogens like Hepatitis B, OSHA requires steps be taken to avoid exposure in places where such exposure is likely. From OSHA:

Bloodborne pathogens are infectious microorganisms in human blood that can cause disease in humans. These pathogens include, but are not limited to, hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Needlesticks and other sharps-related injuries may expose workers to bloodborne pathogens. Workers in many occupations, including first responders, housekeeping personnel in some industries, nurses and other healthcare personnel, all may be at risk for exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

AND

Engineering controls are the primary means of eliminating or minimizing employee exposure and include the use of safer medical devices, such as needleless devices, shielded needle devices, and plastic capillary tubes.

You'll notice that's about avoiding being stuck by a needle that might be infected with a blood-borne pathogen in a work environment in which needles and blood are handled regularly. It's not about breathing the air your coworker coughed over the cubicle wall.

Vaccine and testing mandates for COVID in the workplace are for an airborne virus, one not specific to the type of work being done at the place of employment. As such, it is general in nature and is, in fact, an expansion of federal authority, one that is very likely to be countered with a lawsuit and overturned, as almost all of OSHA's ETS decrees issued since 1971 have been.

And, Artie, I've had some exposure to sharps handling procedures and OSHA mandated lab and medical office safety procedures.

========================================

...the difference between you and I.... ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 3:00 PM

It's "between you and me," Artie. "Between" is a proposition and takes an object, so the pronoun should be the objective case "me" and not the nominative case "I."

I understand your confusion. People who have been corrected many times as children for saying things like, "Him and me went to the store..." are nervous about using the pronoun, me, often choosing to avoid it altogether and substitute "myself" or "I" - as you regularly do.

Got it... when the Trump CDC extends a moratorium it is not executive branch overreach... but when the Biden administration extends the exact same policy it is overreach. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 3:13 PM

Yes, Artie, it was executive branch over-reach. The Court's ruling made that clear. However, it was allowed to stand in that case because it had an expiration date.

However, the Court specifically said that any further action on an eviction moratorium would have to be imposed by the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

Biden knew this. Nonetheless, he went ahead and issued a CDC moratorium that he knew the Court would not uphold.

I know the law is a topic that confuses you, Artie, but do try to keep up.

Talk about a Gish Gallop. Artie, you've thrown so many topics into the mix here, that it's taking several posts just answer your ridiculous allegations.

========================================

Unless of course they are trying to investigate an attack on the Capitol building and then it is just a partisan with hunt, right? ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 3:08 PM

If the committee investigating an incident contains only people hostile to the person your party disagrees with and blames for the incident, then yes, you're open to charges of conducting a witch hunt.

If your committee blanket subpoenas phone calls and documents from members of the opposing party, then yes, you're open to charges of partisanship.

If you want to find the truth, you search for the truth, wherever the evidence takes you. You build theories from evidence; you do not start with a theory that your political opponents are at fault and search only for evidence to support that theory.

As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should know that and support an honest search for the truth, whatever the truth happens to be.

============================================

You defended that nonsense on a number of occasions. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 3:08 PM

I don't know what you think I've defended, but it wasn't the Capitol incursion. I did disagree with you and held that it was not an insurrection, but I did not defend it in any way.

Nuance is not your strong suit, Artie.

Conan Says:

"Hepatitis B, Artie, is not an airborne virus. In the case of blood-borne pathogens like Hepatitis B, OSHA requires steps be taken to avoid exposure in places where such exposure is likely."

I am aware Conan... that is why it is called the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard.

This isn't the defense you think it is though.

Bloodborne pathogens only present an immediate risk to the individual as they are not communicable through droplets in the air.

Covid on the other hand is easily transmissible from one infected individual to another, which means it presents a more serious workplace hazard to people other than the individual.

OSHA is on extremely firm legal ground when it comes to the newest provisions it has set in place.

This is not an instance of executive branch overreach. OSHA is acting well within it's authority as compared to other historical and contemporary regulations.

Any legal challenge is very likely to lose on the merits.

"You'll notice that's about avoiding being stuck by a needle that might be infected with a blood-borne pathogen in a work environment in which needles and blood are handled regularly. It's not about breathing the air your coworker coughed over the cubicle wall."

Once again Conan... I know this, I've worked in these laboratory facilities before.

You're reading this for the first time so it is a new discovery for you, I have a very detailed understanding of the existing standards.

From a workplace hazard perspective it is *more* important to protect people from air-based transmission from infected coworkers than to protect people from themselves.

Given current regulations you can sign a waiver to opt out of HepB vaccination and if the company chooses to keep you on board (many of them would not) then the person at risk is yourself... you present zero danger to the person next to you should you decide to risk HepB infection.

Your argument is weak.

"It's "between you and me," Artie. "Between" is a proposition and takes an object, so the pronoun should be the objective case "me" and not the nominative case "I.""

I don't get the sense that you actually speak English natively.

The phrase "between you and I" is an accepted idiom and part of colloquial speech for native English speakers.

How are you not aware of this?

It has been part of common parlance for so very long at this stage that even Shakespeare used it in The Merchant of Venice where he wrote "all debts are cleared between you and I."

You seem to be at war with the very notion of casual speech.

I'm not a stickler for these kinds of things on an internet blog.

Conan Says:

"Yes, Artie, it was executive branch over-reach. The Court's ruling made that clear. However, it was allowed to stand in that case because it had an expiration date."

Right... so the Trump administration imposed a moratorium and you didn't make a stink about it... in so doing that administration created a precedent that you are now pissed off because the Biden administration decided to follow up on?

What you are engaging in here is political double standards.

Please do me a favor and show me a quote where you expressed how very upset you were with executive branch overreach in 2020 when Trump put in the moratorium.

I won't hold my breath because it didn't bother you at the time.

In fact there were several occasions where you defended the Trump administration one that didn't engage in executive branch overreach.

The point being that it is silly to hold Biden to a wildly different standard.

If the moratorium is overreach now then it was overreach then and there is no reason to make the following declaration:

"To be fair to Biden, he didn't start the trend. He did, however, put it on steroids."

It doesn't appear as if he put anything on steroids if he was just following suit.

At worst he was continuing the trend already established by the previous administration... a trend you never expressed any issues with at the time.

Conan Says:

"If the committee investigating an incident contains only people hostile to the person your party disagrees with and blames for the incident, then yes, you're open to charges of conducting a witch hunt."

You haven't established with evidence that any of these folks are incapable of performing their duties in a dispassionate manner in service of the facts.

You are simply asserting without evidence.

Congressional oversight of the executive branch is not predicated on the idea that everyone involved in the investigation needs to have warm fuzzy feelings toward those involved in the investigation.

The fundamental problem with your conception of how congressional oversight is supposed to work is that if evidence comes to light that an individual has done something inappropriate then no one in Congress can now perform oversight unless they are already predisposed to think everything is fine?

Let's use an extreme example.

For arguments sake, let's imagine that a member of the executive branch were to walk into the building while it was in session and then fire off rounds randomly throughout the chambers. Let's further imagine that no one is actually injured but everyone is justifiably worried that they could have been seriously hurt or killed by the actions of the person with the firearm.

You would argue that since the members of Congress have a legitimate reason to be frustrated with that particular member of the executive branch that now they have lost their ability to provide oversight regarding that individual.

Simply put that is an insane way to view things.

That members of Congress might be upset that their lives were put in jeopardy on January 6th is not a reason to draw a negative inference about their ability to investigate the role of the executive branch in that event.

You are setting a dangerous standard that if the executive branch decides to physically assault Congress then Congress has no business providing oversight if the event ruffled their feathers.

Your stance is a pro-coup position.

If the coup is successful you've now taken over the government... and if it isn't successful now the legislative branch has no business investigating the role the executive branch might have had.

You have not provided a framework for executive branch accountability to the legislative branch for the kinds of events that require the highest level of accountability.

Let's be clear about who was openly hostile to Congress leading up to January 6th... it was the executive branch of the United States.

And here you are making excuses for why Congress has no business investigating what occurred that imperiled the lives of everyone in the Capitol building.

The fundamental problem I suspect is that you are astute enough to understand that a full investigation will have political fallout that you want to avoid.

"If you want to find the truth, you search for the truth, wherever the evidence takes you. You build theories from evidence; you do not start with a theory that your political opponents are at fault and search only for evidence to support that theory."

There is nothing complicated here Conan.

A proper investigation involves understanding exactly why the response to defend the Capitol was so lackluster and that the only law enforcement officers available were the Capitol police. Importantly this is the only law enforcement entity in DC not under the control of the executive branch.

That requires collecting the communications records from the administration and identifying what orders were given and when.

Furthermore, there is already evidence that Republican members of Congress were in communication with the Trump administration throughout the day and the nature and details of those communications is relevant.

The only thing that has happened thus far in terms of subpoenas is that various companies have been instructed to preserve records.

This is standard practice during an investigation.

Only later do you request those records as you follow the evidence.

This prevents individuals from obstructing justice by erasing their own documents because a third party has been instructed to maintain their own copies.

The point being that you are clearly very pro legislative oversight if and only if the oversight is for a Democrat in the executive branch.

Even physical assault where people were murdered on the Capitol isn't enough for you to acknowledge that Democrat's have any business investigating a Republican administration.

This is not an instance of executive branch overreach. OSHA is acting well within it's [sic] authority as compared to other historical and contemporary regulations.

Not as much as you seem to think. The regulations to which you refer are specific to workplaces in which such exposure to said pathogens is part of the work being done.

COVID is a general virus, like influenza. OSHA has no general workplace requirements governing influenza exposure because such requirements would essentially give OSHA control over Americans' daily lives and not specifically the workplace environment.

OSHA recommends a seasonal flu vaccine and other workplace safety steps, but does not have the authority to require an influenza vaccine or testing in order to be able to enter a general workplace. It can, however, regulate exposure in labs and medical offices in which work is done on the influenza virus.

See the difference, Artie?

Oh, and the possessive form of "it" is "its" not "it's." Find that in Shakespeare.

==================================================

The phrase "between you and I" is an accepted idiom and part of colloquial speech for native English speakers. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 11:45 PM

Colloquial speech and idioms are not always grammatically correct. How are you not aware of this?

...even Shakespeare used it in The Merchant of Venice where he wrote "all debts are cleared between you and I." ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 11:45 PM

Shakespeare wrote in the 1600s and wrote for an illiterate audience. This is a few centuries later and literacy rates have improved. And grammatical assumptions in Shakespeare's time may have been different than today.

The usage in Shakespeare was a letter from Antonio to Bassanio. Perhaps Shakespeare included the improper usage in order to give his audience insight into Antonio, "all debts are cleared between you and I if I might but see you at my death."

In addition, Antonio was a melancholy character, a hopeless depressive who could not even muster the energy to defend himself against execution. As such, his usage may have been tailored to his character to show his inadequacy.

Many songwriters have used "you and I" after a preposition in songwriting, too. Doesn't make it correct English.

An early 2000s BBC survey of its listeners found "between you and I" after a preposition to be the most annoying grammatical mistake.

Your defense in these cases is always to refer to colloquial speech patterns. You insist that you are highly educated, far above the common person, whom you disparage. Yet you use common usage as your defense when caught in grammatical mistakes. Which is it to be, commoner or patrician?

==================================================

The only thing that has happened thus far in terms of subpoenas is that various companies have been instructed to preserve records. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 12:23 AM

They've been instructed to preserve the records of Republicans only, no Democrats were included in that order. I would think that preserving the records for all members of Congress active on that day would be a better and more comprehensive instruction; certainly one without this one's presumption of guilt.

Let's use an extreme example. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 12:23 AM

You always do.

If, as in your "extreme example," the executive were to walk into the chambers and "fire off rounds," there would be reason to immediately suspect him of wrongdoing and investigate with some prejudice. Likely the security forces would have subdued him and the Vice President would be, at least temporarily, filling the executive role.

This case, however, is not so clear cut. This is not a situation in which any of the 535 members of Congress watched Donald Trump walk into the chambers and "fire off rounds." If it were so clear cut, the second impeachment would have had a different outcome, instead of being the "sentence first - verdict afterward" fiasco it was.

A proper investigation involves understanding exactly why the response to defend the Capitol was so lackluster and that the only law enforcement officers available were the Capitol police. Importantly this is the only law enforcement entity in DC not under the control of the executive branch. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 12:23 AM

The Capitol Police response was also "lackluster." Some CP officers even held doors for the incursion. That agency is overseen by a three-person board and several committees in Congress, not the executive brach.

Furthermore, there is already evidence that Republican members of Congress were in communication with the Trump administration throughout the day and the nature and details of those communications is relevant. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 12:23 AM

And we can infer guilt because of that? Because a member of Congress being in touch with members of the executive administration of his own party is de facto evidence of conspiracy. Paging Dr. Mudd.

All records of that day should be preserved for the investigation - regardless of the party affiliation of the individual.

Artie, you're still looking at this through a partisan political lens. It needs a non-partisan investigation to get to the truth of what happened. A selectively stacked select committee leaves the other party free to question and doubt the findings.

Republican should not have blocked a Congressional committee of inquiry, no matter their concerns of partisanship on its part. However, Pelosi's select committee and her populating it with rabid anti-Trumpers makes it, its methods, and its findings suspect.

Even physical assault where people were murdered on the Capitol isn't enough for you to acknowledge that Democrat's [sic] have any business investigating a Republican administration. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 12:23 AM

Murdered?

The only person killed as a direct result that incident was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran shot by Capitol Police officer, Michael Byrd, while she was outside the doors of the Senate chamber. Byrd later claimed he showed "extraordinary courage" and "saved countless lives" by shooting the unarmed Babbitt.

Granted, he could not have then known she was, or any of the others around her were, unarmed, but he has later shown no regrets about the shooting, in fact promoting himself as a hero for it.

Officer Brian Sicknick, often held up as a tragic victim, actually died of multiple strokes - i.e., natural causes. Stories of his being beaten and dying of his injuries have since been widely debunked.

By the way, Artie, the plural of "Democrat" is "Democrats." No apostrophe necessary. In fact, in most cases, apostrophes are used for contractions and possessive cases, not plurals.

Conan Says:

"Not as much as you seem to think. The regulations to which you refer are specific to workplaces in which such exposure to said pathogens is part of the work being done."

You are desperately trying to identify distinctions that do not carry weight from a legal perspective.

OSHA has been enforcing the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard for decades at this point.

There are no significant hurdles from an authority perspective for OSHA to enact a similarly crafted air-bourn pathogens standard.

As a matter of fact, this style of regulation already exists as far back as 2009:

https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/standard-protect-against-infectious-airborne-diseases-first-nation

"With full support from labor and management stakeholders, on May 21 the Cal/OSHA Standards Board unanimously approved the Aerosol Transmissible Disease (ATD) standard which is designed to protect workers in healthcare and related industries from the spread of diseases such as tuberculosis, measles, influenza, and other pathogens spread by coughing and sneezing."

Next I am sure you will argue something about state authority versus federal authority... but this isn't a winning argument either.

This has been a topic of conversation for several years at this point to put in regulations for pathogens other than the blood bourn variety:

https://www.osha.gov/infectious-diseases/rulemaking

"Employees in health care and other high-risk environments face long-standing infectious disease hazards such as TB, influenza and MRSA, as well as new and emerging infectious disease threats. OSHA is considering the need for a standard to ensure that employers establish a comprehensive infection control program and control measures to protect employees from exposures to infectious agents that can cause significant disease."

This development isn't some knee jerk reaction to COVID. It has been implemented and on the table for discussion for years.

At no stage was anyone worried that OSHA had the regulatory authority to cover only blood bourn pathogens.

If you believe OSHA only covers needle sticks and nothing else from a workplace disease transmission perspective you are wrong... but what else is new.

Your argument is akin to saying that the FDA can regulate beef that comes from cows... but not lab grown meat and then saying the two are apples and oranges and that the FDA can only regulate meat that comes from livestock.

I get that this is the only style of argument you have... but it is incredibly weak and extremely unlikely to prevail on the merits.

OSHA is acting well within it's authority as established by Congress.

OSHA is acting well within it's authority as established by Congress. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 11:00 AM

OSHA has been enforcing the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard for decades at this point. ~ Artemis at September 14, 2021 11:00 AM

Yes it has, in places in which exposure to a bloodborne pathogen is a normal risk of the work being done - i.e., labs, medical offices, etc.

From OSHA and the CDC: "The Bloodborne Pathogens Standard applies to employees who have occupational exposure (reasonably anticipated job-related contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials). The three most common bloodborne pathogens (BBPs) are human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV)."

It applies to employees in workplaces in which exposure to such pathogens is a normal risk of the work being done - not to every employee in America. The proposed COVID Emergency Temporary Standard would apply to every workplace in America with over 100 employees - except the USPS.

If you work in a bank or an office, your employer is not covered by the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard because you and your fellow employees have no reasonably anticipated job-related contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials.

You will not be offered an employer-paid Hep-B vaccination within 10 days of starting a new job at a bank because you are not "reasonably anticipated to have exposure" that would require said bank to supply you with a Hep-B vaccination.

========================================

"Employees in health care and other high-risk environments face long-standing infectious disease hazards such as TB, influenza and MRSA, as well as new and emerging infectious disease threats. OSHA is considering the need for a standard to ensure that employers establish a comprehensive infection control program and control measures to protect employees from exposures to infectious agents that can cause significant disease."

Again, you're citing a limited application as if it were universal. "Employees in healthcare and other high risk environments..." are cited specifically in this document, for a reason.

OSHA does not have universal authority. No federal agency does. Nor should any.

The proposed COVID Emergency Temporary Standard is an attempt at a universal application of OSHA's authority. For example, it makes no distinction for remote employees. In OSHA's own words, "...there are limitations to our authority. One of these limitations involves the applicability of the Act. Section 4 of the Act limits OSHA's jurisdiction to, 'employment performed in a workplace....'"

Here is a copy of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. You should read the entire thing.

=======================================

Artie, you're trying to use legal gymnastics and syllogisms to stretch OSHA's authority fit your undying thirst for expanded universal federal government oversight and control of citizens' lives.

Now, if Congress were to pass a nationwide vaccine mandate, that would be another matter. The argument here is about a federal regulatory agency's authority to do so.

Artemis is irrelevent. This is not:
___________________

September 13, 2021

To: SRR Employees
SRR’s COVID-19 Vaccination Plan
Safety is a value at Savannah River Remediation. From day 1 of this pandemic, we have kept Safety at the forefront of all decisions regarding COVID-19 protocols. The difference between day 1 and today is that we now have a safe, effective, and FDA-approved vaccination (the Pfizer vaccine) to fight this illness. Vaccination continues to be the strongest line of defense. It’s critically important to everyone’s safety that the SRR workforce become fully vaccinated.

As such, SRR is implementing a Vaccination Incentive Program, paid out of corporate fee, to do everything we can as a company to advocate for vaccination. All SRR employees who are fully vaccinated by November 1, 2021, will be entered into a drawing. There will be one $10,000 award; two $5,000 awards; and five $1,000 awards. If you are already fully vaccinated, you will be entered into the drawing as well. We believe it is only fair that all vaccinated employees participate in the incentive program. In order to qualify for the drawing, you must be fully vaccinated and select “fully vaccinated” on your Certification of Vaccination form. If your vaccination status has changed, you can resubmit the form after you’ve been fully vaccinated.

SRR will re-establish the rapid testing program that was used earlier this year. Rapid testing will focus on personnel participating in close-contact work, in high-occupancy areas, and who are unvaccinated. It will be required that you participate in rapid testing if you are selected—it is not voluntary or optional. We expect the rapid testing capability to be in place in late-September and will continue into the foreseeable future.

Finally, SRR intends to make vaccinations a condition of employment. As required by law, exceptions for medical conditions and religious beliefs will be allowed. The deadline for mandatory vaccination of SRR employees is expected to be November 30. After that day, all employees working for SRR must be fully vaccinated or have an approved exception. Before we get there, I encourage you to take advantage of the Vaccination Incentive Program while you can.

Over the last six months I have listened to the perspectives of many people on the topic of vaccination. I know that many people have strong feelings for and against the vaccines, and I don’t believe there is anything more we can do to close that gap. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. OSHA has declared COVID-19 a workplace hazard, and as such, it is our responsibility to implement plans and programs to eliminate that hazard and that are in the best interest of the overall team. I believe our plan does exactly that. In addition, the Biden administration announced last week that all Federal Government employees and contractors would have to be vaccinated. It is our intent to comply with the President’s Executive Order. 

I want to thank all of you for your understanding as we seek to ensure a safe work environment.
 
Phil Breidenbach
SRR President & Project Manager
__________________

Note that there is no credit for having had the disease, thus having your own immunity.

Conan Says:

"It applies to employees in workplaces in which exposure to such pathogens is a normal risk of the work being done - not to every employee in America. The proposed COVID Emergency Temporary Standard would apply to every workplace in America with over 100 employees - except the USPS."

There is no logical inconsistency here Conan.

If every employee in America had an exposure risk to blood bourn pathogens then the OSHA regulations would instantly apply.

The sad reality is that every employee in America is presently at risk for exposure to a highly infectious air bourn pathogen that has already resulted in the deaths of more than 680,000 American citizens.

There is now a universal exposure risk that creates a government interest in safeguarding individuals who work in those environments.

As it stands there is no vaccine requirement for workplaces with over 100 employees. There is an opt out alternative that tests unvaccinated employees on a regular schedule to help protect their coworkers from exposure.

This kind of regulation is on extremely firm legal ground and is well within the existing regulatory authority of OSHA.

There is no rational reason to believe that OSHA has the authority to regulate safety protocols for one set of pathogens but not another.

"You will not be offered an employer-paid Hep-B vaccination within 10 days of starting a new job at a bank because you are not "reasonably anticipated to have exposure" that would require said bank to supply you with a Hep-B vaccination."

Yes... hence the relevant question is if people have a reasonably anticipated risk of exposure to COVID in workplaces with more than 100 employees.

The answer to this question is yes.

You are complaining about nothing at this point.

You have no argument... not one based in reason, not one based in logic, not one based in evidence, not one based on law, not one based on historical precedent.

All you have is an argument based on grievance.

You are not on a firm foundation here Conan.

"OSHA does not have universal authority. No federal agency does. Nor should any."

It doesn't need "universal authority"... whatever that is supposed to mean.

The authority is limited to creating regulations to create a safe working environment for employees who are placed at risk.

COVID presents a health risk to employees... OSHA is well within it's authority to regulate that risk.

Again your argument is akin to saying that the FDA doesn't have "universal authority" to regulate laboratory grown meat because you insist that their regulations only apply to livestock.

Good luck with that style of argument... it is weak and unconvincing.

"Here is a copy of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. You should read the entire thing."

Perhaps you should be the one reading it Conan.

Let's quote a few items:

"To assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes."

That is the opening charter.

COVID generates an unhealthy working environment and presents an occupational risk for employees. OSHA is tasked with creating and enforcing standards to mitigate such risks.

"(7)by providing medical criteria which will assure insofar as practicable that no employee will suffer diminished health, functional capacity, or life expectancy as a result of his work experience;"

This really is an open and shut case Conan... your argument has no legs.

Incidentally, the legal provision that backs things like the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard is OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/655

You really need to read the following:

"(c)Emergency temporary standards
(1)The Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger."

That is all there is to it Conan.

OSHA has the authority to enact emergency temporary standards if it is determined that employees are exposed to grave danger from agents that are physically harmful.

Medical professionals and scientists are already in agreement that the COVID pandemic presents such a risk.

That your opinion as a layperson may not be aligned with the experts is completely immaterial.

No one is the least bit interested in your personal assessment of the risks associated with COVID infection.

The experts recognize the risks and OSHA has the legal regulatory authority to act on that basis.

Radwaste,

You can say that I am irrelevant all you like, but it will never change the fact that every word I have said is completely consistent with the words of your own boss:

"Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. OSHA has declared COVID-19 a workplace hazard, and as such, it is our responsibility to implement plans and programs to eliminate that hazard and that are in the best interest of the overall team."

Conan can pretend all he likes that OSHA doesn't have the authority to create regulatory standards to ensure a safe working environment... but as per usual he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

You're own boss (and presumably his legal team) understand that OSHA is operating well within it's regulatory authority here.

Only know nothings with strong uninformed opinions believe this is outside of OSHA's purview.

"Note that there is no credit for having had the disease, thus having your own immunity."

Well of course not.

The data indicates that natural immunity from previous COVID infection is not a good indicator of resistance to new COVID variants.

The reason for this is that natural immunity randomly targets the virus and as a result such individuals may not have developed a response that targets viral components that are likely to be conserved between strains.

Immunity achieved through vaccination is much more likely to be effective against other strains because the antibody response is trained specifically to identify the spike protein.

The spike protein happens to be a component that cannot radically change because that is the viral component that acts as part of the lock-and-key mechanism that drives cellular infection.

Yes there can be some mutations to the spike protein that enhance infection, but the nature of those changes has to be subtle because if it changes too much it will lose the ability to infect other cells entirely.

Natural immunity is *not* a replacement for immunity achieved via vaccination in this case.

Artie, by your reasoning, OSHA could impose vaccination requirements for MMR and Polio as well. It could, by your rationale, require influenza vaccines for all workplaces. It cannot.

OSHA could, by your logic, declare workplace violence to be a danger and attempt to regulate firearms using such justification. You'd have OSHA and the federal government vested with police-state powers.

Your heavy-handed zeal to teach those deplorables a lesson would remove OSHA's purview from solely the workplace and impose it over all public aspects of society, using a legally-thin veil of "workplace exposure."

The OSH Act of 1970 was never intended to vest an agency of the executive branch with such widely-applicable powers. OSHA was intended to ensure that people working in workplaces and fields in which there was an inherent danger from the work being done had some form of protection from those dangers - not to have OSHA declare anything an emergency and issue an Emergency Temporary Standard, which would be neither temporary nor based on an actual emergency.

In fact, Artie, OSHA has not successfully sustained an ETS since 1978, over-reaching its authority every time - even failing to defend in the courts an ETS for asbestos exposure.

Imposing a nationwide COVID vaccine mandate is not the role of a federal agency, but of Congress. In the face of Congress' lack of willingness to even debate the matter, Biden's frustration is understandable, but that does not, in any way, render an encroaching police state justified.

OSHA is far from "extremely firm legal ground" when it comes this vaccine mandate. Your arguments to the contrary are emotional and not legal in their foundations.

Conan Says:

"Artie, by your reasoning, OSHA could impose vaccination requirements for MMR and Polio as well. It could, by your rationale, require influenza vaccines for all workplaces. It cannot."

It could if the US was suddenly impacted by a massive measles or polio outbreak that was resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens.

This is the part you seem to have difficulty understanding.

Regulatory authority is subject to the conditions that are present.

Under normal circumstances no one has the authority to just break down the doors to your home and carry you out of your bed while you are in your pajamas.

When your home is on fire and your life is in imminent danger however suddenly the members of the fire department have the authority to bash your front door in and destroy your walls in order to get you out even if you are unconscious and wake up resisting the rescue.

Your problem is that for some reason you believe that your personal judgment on the seriousness of the pandemic has anything to do with the regulatory authority of OSHA... it doesn't... you have no expertise or special knowledge in this area.

Simply put you are not qualified to determine what constitutes a workplace hazard and what doesn't.

The next time you wake up to a group of firefighters bashing in your door waking you out of a dead sleep why don't you see how it goes when you scream and yell that they have no authority to carry you out of your own home.

OSHA is on extremely firm legal ground when it comes to the newest provisions it has set in place. ~ Artemis at September 13, 2021 11:45 PM

Not at all. The US Constitution reserves plenary police powers to the states and not to the federal government. As such, even if Congress were to pass a nationwide vaccine mandate, there would be constitutional issues and challenges.

Conan Says:

"...even failing to defend in the courts an ETS for asbestos exposure."

You will be sad to learn that both the EPA and OSHA continue to regulate asbestos.

https://www.osha.gov/asbestos

"Asbestos is well recognized as a health hazard and its use is now highly regulated by both OSHA and EPA."

It isn't regulated via an ETS as OSHA has established a permanent standard as opposed to an emergency one.

How do you suppose OSHA has the regulatory authority to regulate asbestos?

According to your argument that should be impossible.

Conan,

Simply put you are wrong.

Your argument regarding the asbestos ETS is also laughable given the actual wording of the decision of the court.

In particular, in that decision the courts made the following statement quite clear:

"gravity of danger is a policy decision committed to OSHA, not to the courts."

The courts put a stay on the asbestos ETS because they found that OSHA did not provide substantive evidence for its claim that 80 people would die over the 6 month time frame the ETS was set to be in place.

That is not exactly legal problem from the perspective of COVID.

What court is going to have difficulty being convinced that thousands of people are at risk of death from COVID as we are currently at a point when thousands of people are dying on average each and every week for a sustained period.

Even your own cited court case doesn't help you and actually bolsters OSHA's authority in this situation.

You have the argument of a child stamping their feet and yelling that no one can tell you what to do... it is time for you to grow up and get some perspective.

Under normal circumstances no one has the authority to just break down the doors to your home and carry you out of your bed while you are in your pajamas. | When your home is on fire and your life is in imminent danger however suddenly the members of the fire department have the authority to bash your front door in and destroy your walls in order to get you out even if you are unconscious and wake up resisting the rescue. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 8:40 AM

Suddenly? No, Artie. The fire department, under the law, has the authority to rescue you from your burning house - as do your neighbors and any random passersby.

The fire department has that authority even before they show up to your burning house.

Artie, this might be your stupidest analogy yet. The fire department is a local agency, not a federal one. This debate is about the legal authority of a federal agency to mandate behavior, not that of the local fire department to rescue people from burning buildings.

========================================

Your problem is that for some reason you believe that your personal judgment on the seriousness of the pandemic has anything to do with the regulatory authority of OSHA... it doesn't... you have no expertise or special knowledge in this area. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 8:40 AM

Thank you for telling me what my problem is. I've always wondered. I'll get right onto fixing that.

Sarcasm aside, my argument, Artie, is not based, in any way, on my or anyone else's judgement of the "seriousness of the pandemic." In fact, the seriousness of the pandemic has nothing to do with my argument, which is based on the lack of any constitutional authority for an agency of the federal government to issue sweeping nationwide mandates.

The US Constitution reserves plenary police powers to the states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Artie, your love of expansive federal power is does not sync with the Constitution. Mandating vaccinations is a state matter, not a federal one.

========================================

Simply put you are not qualified to determine what constitutes a workplace hazard and what doesn't. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 8:40 AM

Nor am I attempting to. Learn to read for comprehension, Artie. Really, it'll do you a world of good.

========================================

That is not exactly legal problem from the perspective of COVID. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 9:00 AM

No, the legal problem from the perspective of COVID is that a federal agency, OSHA, is attempting to expand its limited authority to issue generalized mandates outside its legislated scope of authority.

In OSHA's own words, "Section 4 of the Act limits OSHA's jurisdiction to, 'employment performed in a workplace....'" Hmm, jurisdiction limited specifically to "employment performed in a workplace."

Yet, now OSHA is attempting to mandate COVID vaccinations across the board with the specious claim that this is a workplace issue because workers could catch it anywhere.

========================================

Even your own cited court case doesn't help you and actually bolsters OSHA's authority in this situation. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 9:00 AM

It does nothing to bolster OSHA's authority in this situation, Artie.

My argument did not rest on the asbestos case, Artie, but on the fact that not one of OSHA's ETS mandates since 1978 has been upheld by the courts - not even one regarding asbestos, a substance, "well recognized as a health hazard." OSHA's faulty math in defending its own regulations notwithstanding.

========================================

How do you suppose OSHA has the regulatory authority to regulate asbestos? ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 8:51 AM

It does not have the authority to regulate asbestos in general. It does, however, have the authority to regulate the exposure of workers handling asbestos - you know, their "employment performed in a workplace."

========================================

You have the argument of a child stamping their feet and yelling that no one can tell you what to do... it is time for you to grow up and get some perspective. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 9:00 AM

Funny, I was about to say the same thing about you.

You fit the narcissist template you keep trying to fit onto others. You insist that all the smart people are on your side. You insist that you have knowledge the rest of us do not, could not; a perspective so rarified that no one here could ever grasp what you readily understand.

No matter the subject, you hold forth as if you are the highest and most knowledgable authority on that subject to be found.

========================================

Artie, you want a vaccine mandate and are willing to excuse, even condone, wide and expansive interpretations of the law to get it. What happens when the precedent you set now is later used by a president to mandate something with which you disagree?

You'll have no defense then, having cut down every law in the land. "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, [Artie], the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Justin Amash, whom you celebrated when he had harshly critical things to say about Trump, had this to say about Biden's mandate, "There’s no authority for this. This is legislative action that bypasses the legislative branch. If you care about representative government — if you’re consistent regardless of who’s president — then it doesn’t matter that you like the policy; this mandate is an abuse of power."

In the past, I've had my disagreements with Amash, even accusing him of begin publicity hungry, but on this, he and I are in agreement. This mandate is an abuse of power.

========================================

Now, Artie, neither of us are attorneys, judges, nor legal scholars. As such, the courts could surprise either or even both of us when this mandate is litigated. And it will be litigated. Stay tuned.

Conan Says:

"Suddenly? No, Artie. The fire department, under the law, has the authority to rescue you from your burning house - as do your neighbors and any random passersby."

Yes Conan... suddenly.

As in they had zero authority to enter your home without your consent until *after* there was a fire.

Similarly, OSHA has no authority to start drafting an ETS until *after* there is a workplace health emergency that justifies that ETS.

"The fire department has that authority even before they show up to your burning house."

You seem to be having difficulty with the concept of time.

Presumably your home isn't not always in a state of being on fire.

As a result there is a time period when they have no authority to bash in your door and then there is a later time period when they do have the authority to bash in your door.

Those two different time frames are separated by the moment in time when your house was engulfed in flames.

You keep insisting that OSHA has no authority to regulate an air bourn viral pandemic and the grounds you are using are that OSHA doesn't have the authority to regulate viruses that do not present an emergency health risk.

Well of course they don't have the authority at the moment propose an ETS for polio... we aren't dealing with a country wide outbreak of polio.

If we were dealing with a massive polio outbreak then OSHA would have the authority to act.

None of this is difficult to understand.

"The US Constitution reserves plenary police powers to the states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""

Great, you've read the 10th amendment.

That still does not help you unless you are trying to argue that OSHA is unconstitutional in general... but that would not be a winning argument as the organization has already appeared before the courts on many occasions and the courts have not ruled that its regulatory authority is not a legitimate federal power.

"No, the legal problem from the perspective of COVID is that a federal agency, OSHA, is attempting to expand its limited authority to issue generalized mandates outside its legislated scope of authority."

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the courts did not find that OSHA was acting outside of it's authority when it came to asbestos.

What it did find was that the ETS in that case was not justified because it could not demonstrate that over the 6 month time span it would be enacted that any deaths were likely to take place, thus justifying the emergency.

After that OSHA crafted permanent asbestos regulations that are still enforced today.

As for OSHA and COVID, it is not a challenge to demonstrate that deaths will take place over the next several months... it isn't even difficult to demonstrate that deaths will take place tomorrow.

The very case you point to explains why OSHA is acting within it's regulatory authority on this issue.

It has the policy power to determine what constitutes a grave danger and it has the data to clearly show that people are at risk of death due to exposure.

"It does not have the authority to regulate asbestos in general. It does, however, have the authority to regulate the exposure of workers handling asbestos - you know, their "employment performed in a workplace.""

Great... so OSHA has the authority to regulate the exposure of workers to COVID in the work environment.

Interestingly if you want to play these silly games, all you are arguing is that the EPA is the appropriate regulatory authority.

Asbestos is regulated by both OSHA and the EPA... OSHA regulates work based exposure and the EPA has the authority to regulate environmental exposure.

No matter how you slice it the federal government regulates asbestos.

COVID doesn't fall into some magical gray zone here.

Either it is a workplace hazard or an environmental hazard that people are exposed to.

OSHA seems the more appropriate regulatory authority... but perhaps the EPA should draft some regulations as well such that all bases are covered as has occurred with asbestos.

I suppose from your perspective, if the EPA did not exist then it would be perfectly fine to have folks working in a building with exposed and shedding asbestos all over the place... so long as none of them were "handling" it... breathing it in would be fine... the only problem from your perspective is "handling" it... whatever that is supposed to mean.

Incidentally, you are wrong here as well by the way... here is some information on OSHA regulating indoor air quality:

https://www.osha.gov/indoor-air-quality

"The quality of indoor air inside offices, schools, and other workplaces is important not only for workers' comfort but also for their health. Poor indoor air quality (IAQ) has been tied to symptoms like headaches, fatigue, trouble concentrating, and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. Also, some specific diseases have been linked to specific air contaminants or indoor environments, like asthma with damp indoor environments. In addition, some exposures, such as asbestos and radon, do not cause immediate symptoms but can lead to cancer after many years."

Will you look at that... OSHA regulations regarding air quality in work environments also covers asbestos.

Quite simply put, like usual you do not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about.

It seems to me that your "handling" argument doesn't hold water, unless you now want to argue that employees "handle" the air around them.

However that argument doesn't bode well for you when those same employees are "handling" air that presents a COVID exposure risk.

"Now, Artie, neither of us are attorneys, judges, nor legal scholars. As such, the courts could surprise either or even both of us when this mandate is litigated. And it will be litigated. Stay tuned."

My position has been consistent throughout this conversation Conan. I remain extremely skeptical that any of your arguments have legs. I'll reiterate what I said earlier:

"I get that this is the only style of argument you have... but it is incredibly weak and extremely unlikely to prevail on the merits." - Artemis at September 14, 2021 11:00 AM

Please note that I didn't say it was impossible that such arguments would prevail on the merits... I am saying that it is extremely unlikely.

The courts have been known to do bone headed things in the past that are logically inconsistent.

In this case I think these regulations are on extremely strong ground.

This is essentially the same kind of argument I was making to you several months ago when Trump and his cronies were busy making wide and sweeping accusations of voter fraud without presenting a shred of credible evidence.

For whatever reason you seemed to think those cases had legs.

Over 60 cases lost on the merits as I told you was very likely to happen.

I'm happy with my track record thus far this year... so far I am up over 50 cases in terms of predicting the outcomes of these kinds of things.

That isn't to mention the Derek Chauvin murder trial where he was found guilt of murder 2, murder 3, and manslaughter despite your constant insistence that George Floyd was just a "dirt bag" and as a police officer Chauvin just treated him as he would any other "dirt bag".

Your instincts on that case weren't really on target either.

We can certainly stay tuned, but I won't hold my breath if another case comes down the pipe where your instincts were way off and you fail to acknowledge that maybe your overall perspective for these things needs to be recalibrated.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I think the odds are in my favor on this one. Going 64 for 65 would still be an excellent record. You're still trying to get 1 for 65.

As in [the fire department] had zero authority to enter your home without your consent until *after* there was a fire. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 5:38 PM

No one argued that the fire department could randomly enter people's dwellings.

In this, you ignore the distinction I pointed out that the fire department is a local agency, not a federal one. That's an important distinction in this debate about the authority of a federal agency to enact a nationwide mandate absent Congressional action, a distinction that renders your analogy meaningless.

========================================

You keep insisting that OSHA has no authority to regulate an air bourn [sic] viral pandemic and the grounds you are using are that OSHA doesn't have the authority to regulate viruses that do not present an emergency health risk. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 5:38 PM

You're doing it again, Artie, rebutting an argument I never made.

You do that as a matter of course, assign a position to someone arbitrarily and argue against that position; and not the argument the person actually makes. At this point, I can only conclude that you do it intentionally in order to disguise the weakness of your own arguments.

Let's break it down. I never said OSHA has no authority to combat a virus that presents an emergency health risk, airborne or otherwise. I presented OSHA's own words (from its own Web site) that its authority if limited by Section 4 of the OSH Act of 1970 to "employment performed in a workplace."

That employees might catch the virus elsewhere and bring it into the workplace is a thinly disguised attempt by the current executive branch to impose what the party cannot impose via legislative action. This mandate is more about control than about public health. If it were truly about public health, the matter would have been put before Congress for debate.

My argument is that allowing this chicanery to succeed sets a bad precedent and violates the original intent of the OSH Act (1970) that created OSHA; that giving OSHA, or any executive branch regulatory agency, the authority to simply declare that a health or other emergency is within its purview and regulate behavior outside its original scope of authority sets a dangerous precedent.

My argument is that this is a matter that requires Congressional action at a minimum. The Supreme Court majority argued thusly in its recent decision on the CDC eviction moratorium.

All the other things you have tried to rebut here are just noise made by you to cover your paper-thin argument that OSHA is the proper agency to use in implementing a nationwide vaccine mandate and that any federal regulatory agency has the authority to enact such a mandate absent Congressional action.

And even then, a Congressionally sanctioned nationwide vaccine mandate may face a court challenge; that such things are not so cut-and-dried as you claim them to be.

You really need to learn to read for comprehension, Artie.

========================================

...to regulate an air bourn.... ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 5:38 PM

Bourn?

I don't get the sense that you actually write English natively.

========================================

That isn't to mention the Derek Chauvin murder trial where he was found guilt of murder 2, murder 3, and manslaughter despite your constant insistence that George Floyd was just a "dirt bag" and as a police officer Chauvin just treated him as he would any other "dirt bag". ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 5:38 PM

Constant insistence?

I mentioned that possibility that Chauvin's reaction to and treatment of Floyd may not have been motivated by race one time and you got "constant" and "insistence" out of it.

Still trying to paint anyone who simply disagrees with you on a debatable point as a despicable human being, eh Artie? Good luck with that. Bringing the Chauvin verdict into this is a poor attempt at misdirection, Artie.

This habit in which you indulge of making up other people's arguments and desperately flailing about when losing an argument is why you were called a "dishonest debater." I see you've learned nothing since then.

For whatever reason you seemed to think those cases had legs. ~ Artemis at September 16, 2021 5:38 PM

Again, you're making up arguments never made.

I never argued those court cases had legs, Artie. I opined that the inconsistencies pointed out in various vote counts and the volume of such inconsistencies merited a review of some kind - an audit, a recount, etc. - and that various voting procedures needed to be tightened to ensure that such inconsistencies did not appear again and effect a further erosion of voter confidence in the electoral process.

Both parties have had a hand in eroding that confidence, more recently the Democrats in 2000 and 2016, and the Republicans in 2020. Stacey Abrams' continued claims of voter suppression and her ongoing refusal to concede her loss in Georgia didn't help matters.

I also stated that the existence of inconsistencies did not, by themselves, prove electoral fraud. What's more, I expressly doubted that the election was fraudulent.

You declared that I was on the side of those claiming electoral fraud and declaring Trump won, not I. This because you refuse to accept that any argument not in kowtowing agreement with yours might have some validity.

Not that any of this has any bearing on the topic at hand. This is just another attempt by you at misdirection: trying to keep people from noticing the destruction of your argument that OSHA has the authority to impose a nationwide vaccine mandate.

As I pointed out, Artie, who knows what will be decided when the OSHA mandate is litigated to its eventual end. Maybe your preference for big government, embodied in a federal agency's authority to enact sweeping mandates will be borne out. Perhaps my preference for limited federal authority will prevail. We'll see.

Conan,

"In this, you ignore the distinction I pointed out that the fire department is a local agency, not a federal one."

It is an irrelevant point when the analogy I was making had to do with government authority changing depending on circumstances.

That is true whether we are talking about a local municipality or the federal government.

The circumstances change what is justified and what is not justified based on the law.

That is why it is called an emergency order.

Exigent circumstances change the parameters just like things change when your house is on fire as compared to it just being another regular fire-free day.

"I never said OSHA has no authority to combat a virus that presents an emergency health risk, airborne or otherwise."

Great, then you agree that OSHA has the authority to step in create regulations that safeguard the health and wellbeing of employees during a pandemic.

"I presented OSHA's own words (from its own Web site) that its authority if limited by Section 4 of the OSH Act of 1970 to "employment performed in a workplace.""

Which is not a relevant argument here as I've already demonstrated that OSHA has the authority to regular air quality within a work place... which includes pathogen exposure as well as things like asbestos.

Your objection has no legs.

"That employees might catch the virus elsewhere and bring it into the workplace is a thinly disguised attempt by the current executive branch to impose what the party cannot impose via legislative action. This mandate is more about control than about public health."

That is dumb Conan.

If you want to bring in a canaster of radon gas into your workplace that you obtained from elsewhere and then release the gas within the workplace and expose other employees you can bet you OSHA would still be able to regulate that the company needs to maintain proper air quality levels.

Companies cannot pass the buck and say they aren't responsible to do anything to protect their employees because you decided to poison everyone and obtained the poison outside of the workplace.

That you might get infected elsewhere and then bring that disease into the workplace and present a danger to everyone else is the issue at hand.

OSHA has the authority to protect everyone else from your infection in the midst of a pandemic.

That isn't about controlling you... it is about protecting all of the other people you are exposing.

Your liberty to swing your arms stops at someone else's face... at least that is what the libertarian mantra used to be.

Now it seems some of you folks want to argue that you have the right to punch people because if they were really interested in protecting themselves they would have taken appropriate action to avoid your fists.

“Bourn?
I don't get the sense that you actually write English natively.”

I love how you skip over the 6 times I spelled borne correctly and focus intently on the one typo and use it to draw stupid conclusions.

I’ll remind you that mental health professionals classify this kind of behavior as indicative of mental illness.

“Constant insistence?

I mentioned that possibility that Chauvin's reaction to and treatment of Floyd may not have been motivated by race one time and you got "constant" and "insistence" out of it.”

Not just once Conan.

“Chauvin saw a drug-addled low-life and treated him like a dirtbag.” - Conan the Grammarian at April 7, 2021 9:00 AM
“Thinking about the Chauvin-Floyd confrontation, it occurs to me that Officer Chauvin didn't encounter so much a black man as he encountered a low-class dirtbag high on drugs and passing funny money. So, he treated Floyd like a dirtbag, throwing him around and showing little concern for his "I can't breathe" protests.”- Conan the Grammarian at April 30, 2021 1:18 PM

What is especially amazing about all of this is that even *after* Chauvin had been found guilty of murder you still refer to it as a “confrontation” between an officer and a dirtbag.

The point being that you don’t ever seem to get anything right.

You also predicted that Biden would be so ridden with the effects of mental decline due to your diagnosis of severe dementia that he would be incapable of functioning by now.

You predicted his sharp decline would be abundantly obvious shortly after the election… that was nearly a year ago at this point.

I have never met someone before who is so very confident in the assertions they make and yet nearly always wrong.

"As I pointed out, Artie, who knows what will be decided when the OSHA mandate is litigated to its eventual end. Maybe your preference for big government, embodied in a federal agency's authority to enact sweeping mandates will be borne out. Perhaps my preference for limited federal authority will prevail. We'll see."

We will see, but my opinion isn't based on my preference.

My opinion on this matter is based on existing case law, historical precedent, and existing regulations.

Your opinion is based on your personal preference... what you wish to be true.

That is why you are extremely likely to be wrong... again.

Well, it wouldn't be an exchange with Artie without his selective quoting past exchanges and mischaracterizing them.

Let's examine the full quote and context of those quotes, shall we, Artie?

The first quote was in a discussion was about public school funding and outcomes.

We pretend the educational outcome discrepancy is evidence of systemic racism, but it's really classism, something we are loathe to discuss in American society. I think that classism better explains the George Floyd incident than racism does. Chauvin saw a drug-addled low-life and treated him like a dirtbag." ~ Conan the Grammarian at April 7, 2021 9:00 AM

Obviously, I was making a point about classism and the point of view of Derrick Chauvin, not directly calling a Floyd a "dirtbag."

Now, the second quote was in response to NicoleK suggesting that social class is the "biggest discriminator" in society. Having shortly beforehand read a op-ed on Megan Markle and her sin in the eyes of the British public being her American perspective that race, not class, for the dividing line in society, I tended to agree with Nicole that social class is an under-appreciated dividing line in society. My response:

Thinking about the Chauvin-Floyd confrontation, it occurs to me that Officer Chauvin didn't encounter so much a black man as he encountered a low-class dirtbag high on drugs and passing funny money. So, he treated Floyd like a dirtbag, throwing him around and showing little concern for his "I can't breathe" protests. Had Floyd been white and behaved the same way, I think the outcome would not have been any different. ... The police don't treat white dirtbags with deference. ~ Conan the Grammarian at April 30, 2021 1:18 PM

I went on in that post to discuss the socio-economic tensions that underpinned the Ferguson unrest.

As you can see, the discussion was much different than what you attempted to portray it as, and it usually is. You are not an honest debater, Artie. You lie and misrepresent on a regular basis.

========================================

Great, then you agree that OSHA has the authority to step in create regulations that safeguard the health and wellbeing of employees during a pandemic. ~ Artemis at September 17, 2021 12:33 PM

Always did - with the emphasis on "reasonably anticipated exposure" during "employment performed in a workplace."

My argument is that OSHA has no authority to expand the scope of its authority to impose a blanket vaccine mandate simply because a worker might pick up a virus outside of work; that a nationwide vaccine mandate is the purview of the legislative branch and not the executive branch.

========================================

My opinion on this matter is based on existing case law, historical precedent, and existing regulations. | Your opinion is based on your personal preference... what you wish to be true. ~ Artemis at September 17, 2021 12:33 PM

What case law? What precedent? You have cited no actual case law or historical precedent that supports such a blanket expansion of OSHA's scope of authority.

I, on the other hand, have pointed out the SCOTUS ruling overturning the recent eviction moratorium in ALABAMA ASSN. OF REALTORS v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. specifically addresses nationwide mandates by executive agencies.

As summarized from the National Law Review:

On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court agreed with the parties challenging the CDC’s orders. Saying that it “strains credibility to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority it asserts,” the court found that the CDC’s broad interpretation of its mandate could permit dramatic administrative overreach.

AND

"It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here."

"Up to Congress." You'll notice that logic is what argued in saying a nationwide vaccine mandate constitutes broad overreach by OSHA.

My viewpoint on this is based on that case and a careful reading of the Constitution, not on emotion or personal preference. Yours, on the other hand, seems to lack a consistent case law or precedent cite to back it up, just a bunch of blather about Bloodborne Pathogens and asbestos, both of which are regulated by OSHA only in the context of specific employment performed in a workplace.

Artie, I believe the Supreme Court will again rule that a federal agency has exceeded its authority and that allowing such a broad interpretation would permit dramatic administrative overreach.

However, unburdened by your massive ego and childish need to count the most trivial coincidences as personal victories, I'm willing to concede that the Court may see things differently.

========================================

You also predicted that Biden would be so ridden with the effects of mental decline due to your diagnosis of severe dementia that he would be incapable of functioning by now. ~ Artemis at September 17, 2021 12:33 PM

Artie, I did not "diagnose" anyone, nor did I "predict." I'm not a medical professional and never claimed to be one. In fact, I specifically pointed out my assessment of Biden's mental state was speculation; informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless.

And Artie, I gave an estimate of two years for Biden's mental decline to reach a point at which removal from office would become a serious possibility. We're only nine months into his term.

I later pointed out that Democrats will need him in office through 2022 to avoid mid-term election campaign accusations of being the party that foisted a mental incompetent onto the country.

Conan Says:

"Well, it wouldn't be an exchange with Artie without his selective quoting past exchanges and mischaracterizing them."

You are a real card... the way you act it is as if any time someone quotes a book they need to quote every chapter and verse for it not to be considered out of context.

I suppose I should have quoted the entirety of The Merchant of Venice earlier when I was quoting Shakespeare.

There is nothing in the context of your quotes changes the fact that you likened Floyd to a dirtbag.

"Obviously, I was making a point about classism and the point of view of Derrick Chauvin, not directly calling a Floyd a "dirtbag.""

Who cares about classicism and Chauvin's personal perspective in this scenario?

The guy is a murderer.

Classism and Chauvin's personal view of Floyd as less than human is not something that need be considered unless you also are saying something negative about the murderer.

Why didn't you characterize Chauvin as the actual "dirtbag" for example?

Let's be clear about something else. You made a few interesting word choices for someone who continually asserts their mastery of the English language and turn of phrase.

Chauvin murdered Floyd... but in both quotes here is how you characterized the interaction:

"the George Floyd incident" and "the Chauvin-Floyd confrontation"

In neither of your entire statements could anyone walk away with an understanding that Chauvin even assaulted Floyd much less murdered him. Nothing at all in your statements even hints at the idea that Chauvin was operating outside of his authority.

It was just an "incident"... just a "confrontation" between an "officer" and a "dirtbag".

Are you so poor with your writing style that you were unable to work into your narrative that Floyd was actually an innocent party in all of this and that Chauvin exceeded his authority and murdered him?

That seems like a weird oversight on your part.

"What case law? What precedent? You have cited no actual case law or historical precedent that supports such a blanket expansion of OSHA's scope of authority."

First off, that you want to characterize it as "a blanket expansion" of scope and authority does not in fact make it so.

Secondly, I did cite actual case law:

"In particular, in that decision the courts made the following statement quite clear:

'gravity of danger is a policy decision committed to OSHA, not to the courts.'

The courts put a stay on the asbestos ETS because they found that OSHA did not provide substantive evidence for its claim that 80 people would die over the 6 month time frame the ETS was set to be in place." - Artemis at September 16, 2021 9:00 AM

That quote is directly from Ass'n v. O.S.H.A.

Read it for yourself here:

https://casetext.com/case/asbestos-information-assn-v-osha

Let's be even more clear though:

"The ETS statute requires that the Secretary issue an ETS only after he finds substantial evidence indicating both that a "grave danger" exists and that an emergency standard is "necessary" to protect workers from such danger. Thus, the gravity and necessity requirements lie at the center of proper invocation of the ETS powers. No one doubts that asbestos is a gravely dangerous product. The gravity we are concerned with, however, is not of the product itself, but of six months exposure to it at 0.5 f/cc, as compared with six months exposure at 2.0 f/cc. Our inquiry, then, is a narrow one, and requires us to evaluate both the nature of the consequences of exposure, and also the number of workers likely to suffer those consequences."

In other words, the courts decision had nothing whatsoever to do with OSHA's ability to define what constituted a "grave danger"... the court recognizes that that is well within the purview of OSHA in terms of setting policy.

The "narrow" inquiry had to do with whether or not OSHA could demonstrate that a six month standards change could impact the health and safety of workers.

OSHA was not able to sufficiently demonstrate that the ETS it had proposed would actually impact the health and safety of workers over the 6 month time frame it was going to exist.

That hurdle does not exist for COVID.

If you believe that it will be difficult for OSHA to demonstrate that testing requirements for workers that have not been vaccinated have no baring on the health and safety of workers in the midst of a pandemic that has already killed nearly 700,000 American citizens then you are delusional.

Your problem is that instead of looking at the rational behind court decisions you look only at the overall decision.

You see that the asbestos ETS was shot down and then conclude that all future emergency standards are dead in the water.

If you had actually read and understood the rational behind the asbestos ETS decision in Ass'n v. O.S.H.A. you would see that the "narrow" objection doesn't apply here.

Artie, I came back here a few days after my last post to see what nonsense you had appended to this discussion; and it's a doozy.

That expression, by the way, does not come from the Duesenberg Motors Company.

========================================

Your problem is that instead of looking at the rational [sic] behind court decisions you look only at the overall decision. ~ Artemis at September 18, 2021 6:15 AM

You see that the asbestos ETS was shot down and then conclude that all future emergency standards are dead in the water. ~ Artemis at September 18, 2021 6:15 AM

Artie, you're hung up on the specifics of the objection to the asbestos case. That's one case, one involving a widely recognized health hazard. That case aside, the fact remains that OSHA has not sustained an ETS since 1971 - for any identified hazard.

One would think such a widely-acknowledged hazard as asbestos would have entitled OSHA to some leeway in the Court's decision, but it did not. And that was my point, not the specifics of the Court's "narrow" objection.

The specifics of OSHA's faulty casualty estimate in the asbestos case notwithstanding, simply put, OSHA failed to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the hazard merited the specific ETS put forth by OSHA.

========================================

If you believe that it will be difficult for OSHA to demonstrate that testing requirements for workers that have not been vaccinated have no baring [sic] on the health and safety of workers in the midst of a pandemic that has already killed nearly 700,000 American citizens then you are delusional. ~ Artemis at September 18, 2021 6:15 AM

That sentence makes no sense, Artie. Why would OSHA be interested in demonstrating that testing has no bearing on the health of other workers?

In this case, OSHA is proposing an ETS that will require workers to be vaccinated or tested and for employers to fund and administer this program. This imposes an additional cost upon employers and reduces the freedom of workers to make choices about their own healthcare. As stupid as avoiding the vaccine might be, it's still a choice the individual is, and should be, allowed to make.

The fact that the vaccine mandate, as outlined by the president, does not exempt remote workers means its scope extends beyond "employment performed in a workplace" - i.e., beyond OSHA's Congressionally-mandated purview. The fact that the order caves to the postal workers' union and exempts the USPS and its 600,000 workers - workers who handle the mail and interact widely with the public - indicates that controlling a pandemic is not at the heart of this mandate.

You, and others of a collectivist bent, believe that OSHA is on firm Constitutional grounds here with any mandate it might issue. I, and others of a more-individualist bent, do not.

Since the specifics of the OSHA mandate are not yet formulated and we have only the president's outline of it to go on, we can do little more than speculate on the constitutionality of such a mandate in general and not on whether the specific one to be issued will be, or can be, upheld.

The Court has been known to consider exigencies, such as war and disease, in granting leeway to restrictive government actions. Sometimes that leeway lends itself to bad decisions that the the Court later comes to regret - e.g., Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214. We shall have to wait and see the specifics of the final mandate is, what the Court's decision on it is, and for history to determine the wisdom of that decision.

Your support for the mandate outline has been noted - as has your continued support for expansive federal power overall.

Conan Says:

"Artie, you're hung up on the specifics of the objection to the asbestos case. That's one case, one involving a widely recognized health hazard. That case aside, the fact remains that OSHA has not sustained an ETS since 1971 - for any identified hazard."

There are a few points you appear to be overlooking that are quite important:

1 - The specifics of that case are the most relevant case law we have available with regard to OSHA's recognized regulatory authority. By comparison, your argument about the CDC and housing is a complete non sequitur.

2 - COVID is a widely recognized health hazard... and as opposed to asbestos which is a chronic hazard... COVID is an acute hazard. This is important when we are talking about an ETS where OSHA needs to demonstrate a short term health benefit from an ETS.

3 - OSHA has not sought to enact an ETS in nearly 40 years. As a result your argument that OSHA hasn't "sustained an ETS since 1971" is silly. You might as well be arguing that the President and the US military do not have the authority to deploy nuclear weapons because they haven't done so in over 75 years. Restraint on the part of a regulatory authority to only utilize emergency standards when an emergency presents itself is a silly reason for you to object. You would have a better case if OSHA was constantly trying to enact emergency standards and they were always getting shut down by the courts. Go ahead and give me a list of examples since 1985 of the courts shutting down an ETS from OSHA... I'll wait.

"One would think such a widely-acknowledged hazard as asbestos would have entitled OSHA to some leeway in the Court's decision, but it did not."

No, one should not think that.

Emergency standards are meant to be used in an emergency.

The narrow objection of the court had to do with the fact that OSHA was using an ETS when it should have just gone through the process of enacting regular standards because OHSA could not demonstrate that the ETS was going to do anything measurable.

COVID is an acute disease that results in deaths each and every day.

One fits the bill for an emergency, and the other doesn't.

Conan Says:

"In this case, OSHA is proposing an ETS that will require workers to be vaccinated or tested and for employers to fund and administer this program. This imposes an additional cost upon employers and reduces the freedom of workers to make choices about their own healthcare. As stupid as avoiding the vaccine might be, it's still a choice the individual is, and should be, allowed to make."

They can still choose to avoid the vaccine Conan.

They just need to be tested on a routine basis to protect the people around them.

This is one of those situations where the rights of different people come into conflict and as a result we need to decide how to handle things.

People are not free to defecate on the public side walk in front of your home.

You are not free to masturbate into the public swimming pool.

People are not free to go into their place of work when they know they have been infected with ebola.

Chefs are not free to wipe their ass with their hands and proceed to cook your food.

Public health regulations aren't anything new... where have you been?

I had to be vaccinated to attend public school... I had to be vaccinated to attend undergrad and graduate school. I've been required to follow public health measures for the entirety of my life... this isn't any different.

There is nothing unusual going on except to those who have decided to be pro-pandemic for some moronic reason.

I assume you are aware that when people immigrate into the US they are required to get each and every vaccine that is recommended by the surgeon general.

Where have all of your complaints been all these years about the onerous burden we have placed upon the personal autonomy of immigrants as we took away their individual choice to be vaccinated.

You're argument is a load of garbage.

This is just the most recent of a multitude of stupid culture war issues concocted by the political right to get outraged out.

Apparently public health is now a big political issue for conservatives.

Incidentally I was always against the anti-vaxxers on the political left when the "vaccines cause autism" nonsense was their thing... they seem to have quieted down on this recently though only for the right to pick it up as if they have some compulsion to monopolize idiocy these days.

"Your support for the mandate outline has been noted - as has your continued support for expansive federal power overall."

Nonsense.

Support for public health measured amidst a pandemic hardly constitutes some overarching support for "expansive federal power".

I am taking a reasonable and metered approach in response to information.

You on the other hand have chosen a very odd time to go to war against public health measures when you've haven't really complained about such provisions in the past.

edit - "you haven't"

Support for public health measured amidst a pandemic hardly constitutes some overarching support for "expansive federal power". ~ Artemis at September 20, 2021 10:15 PM

Most of the arguments you make and positions you take tend to line up in favor expanding federal power over limiting it. I, on the other hand, tend to favor a more limited scope of federal power and have voiced concerns about expanding federal power. Hence, our differences on this.

========================================

You on the other hand have chosen a very odd time to go to war against public health measures when [you] haven't really complained about such provisions in the past. ~ Artemis at September 20, 2021 10:15 PM

No one has chosen "to go to war against public health measures." I'm voicing concern that allowing a federal agency to arbitrarily impose a nationwide mandate under what it declares to be a national emergency will have unintended consequences that may set a precedent that will limit our freedom in the future. In doing this in this way, we may be creating a monster.

There are ways to impose "public health measures" that would still respect constitutional limits on federal power and individual freedom. None of those seem to be on the table right now - and they should be.

========================================

I assume you are aware that when people immigrate into the US they are required to get each and every vaccine that is recommended by the surgeon general.

Where have all of your complaints been all these years about the onerous burden we have placed upon the personal autonomy of immigrants as we took away their individual choice to be vaccinated.

~ Artemis at September 20, 2021 10:15 PM

Vaccination requirements for immigrants are recommended by the ACIP (Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices), an advisory committee to the Department of Health and Human Services and the CDC, under a 1996 law passed by Congress (the Immigration and Nationality Act).

Note the "passed by Congress" part of that - and how in sync that is with how I've said any nationwide vaccine mandate should be implemented. This is not an example of a federal agency arbitrarily imposing vaccine mandates not directly in line with its Congressional authorization.

As for personal autonomy, those immigrants who have religious or moral objections to being vaccinated can apply for a waiver.

Conan Says:

"Most of the arguments you make and positions you take tend to line up in favor expanding federal power over limiting it. I, on the other hand, tend to favor a more limited scope of federal power and have voiced concerns about expanding federal power. Hence, our differences on this."

I think I need to familiarize you with a concept known as survivorship bias because what you are doing here is analogously illogical.

There is a well known story within statistics related to Abraham Wald and his analysis on how to minimize bomber losses due to enemy fire.

In particular, he analyzed the bullet hole patterns on the planes that had returned from their flights.

What is interesting is that his analysis completely contradicted the US military's conclusions that the most-hit areas of the plane needed additional armor.

Instead he concluded that the least hit or not hit areas needed additional armor because the planes that returned by definition survived the attack. By contrast, planes that were hit in the areas they saw no bullet hold patterns were instead the planes that were shot down and never returned.

So let's look at our arguments. You will often see me disagreeing with your positions that seek to eliminate the role of the federal government, or to limit them in a manner that is grossly inconsistent with existing statutes or court opinions.

You then erroneously conclude that I am in favor of expanding federal power over limiting it because you never seem me arguing a position that is *more* limiting than you advocate for.

However, let's posit for arguments sake that I have a very middle of the road opinion about the whole thing. Let's classify me as a moderate in this area for a moment.

Now, let's say I am talking to someone who is very extreme on the position of limiting the scope of the federal government... they are naturally going to find me disagreeing with them and arguing for a less limited scope.

By contrast, let's say I am talking to someone who is very extreme on the position of expanding the scope of the federal government... they are naturally going to find me disagreeing with them and arguing for a more limited scope.

This is the fundamental problem with the way folks who exist at political extremes see people in the middle.

When I debate folks on the extreme left they argue that I am right-wing... when I debate folks on the extreme right they argue that I am left-wing.

You have failed to properly take into account where you land on the political spectrum.

You are nowhere near the middle Conan... so even moderates appear to you to be in favor of expansive federal power and that they are far to the left.

Let me know the next time you make an argument in favor of expending federal power to some gross extent and you might very well find me opposing your position and arguing that the scope needs to be more limited.

You don't see those rebuttals because you never make such arguments.

Stop looking at where the bullets are and start considering all of the information you do not have in your possession.

"I'm voicing concern that allowing a federal agency to arbitrarily impose a nationwide mandate under what it declares to be a national emergency will have unintended consequences that may set a precedent that will limit our freedom in the future."

This is the slippery slope fallacy and/or an inappropriate appeal to consequences.

Both of these are irrational ways of looking at things.

You have a lot of work to do to establish that your slippery slope is real and that A leads to B leads to C, etc...

You haven't presented one shred of evidence that if OSHA regulates health safety measures directly related to an ongoing pandemic that has killed nearly 700,000 American citizens it will lead to anything we should be worried about down the road.

This is precisely the kind of emergency situation that the ETS provision was created to deal with.

You then erroneously conclude that I am in favor of expanding federal power over limiting it because you never seem me arguing a position that is *more* limiting than you advocate for. ~ Artemis at September 21, 2021 4:42 PM

Erroneously? I don't think so, Artie. I've never seen you argue for even slight limits on federal power - with anyone on this blog or on any topic; even with those posters on this blog who have argued in favor of expanded federal authority, and there have been a few.

Nor is everyone on this blog "extreme" in viewing limited federal power a good thing - and you've never agreed with any of them on any point. Your previously-stated view of yourself as a political moderate indicates your Overton Window has shifted far to the left.

Artie, you've never presented yourself on this blog as moderate in your political views. Your presented positions are in almost perfect sync with left wing talking points. Even when you are presented with an opportunity to take a more moderate stance, you've never availed yourself of it.

Now, you're saying that is because everyone on this blog is so "extreme" that you are forced constantly to present the left-wing argument. NicoleK is an extreme right winger? Leona is an extreme right winger? Amy?

So no, Artie, this is not analogous to the bomber loss problem - a problem that I'm quite familiar with, being a student of both history and of business management. I'm not missing the arguments you don't make - because you're not making them at all.

========================================

Let me know the next time you make an argument in favor of expending federal power to some gross extent and you might very well find me opposing your position and arguing that the scope needs to be more limited. ~ Artemis at September 21, 2021 4:42 PM

I'm quite unlikely to make such an argument.

And when someone else on this blog does, I expect you'll remain silent, as you have in the past.

========================================

You haven't presented one shred of evidence that if OSHA regulates health safety measures directly related to an ongoing pandemic that has killed nearly 700,000 American citizens it will lead to anything we should be worried about down the road. ~ Artemis at September 21, 2021 4:42 PM

Then you haven't been paying attention. The Supreme Court shot down the CDC's eviction moratorium for exactly those kinds of concerns, that arbitrarily expanding a federal agency's authority under the pretext of a national emergency could lead to unintended consequences of a more authoritarian government, even if said emergency does exist.

We could also look to history for the tragic consequences of unrestrained government authority, whether under the pretext of a national "emergency" or not - to Germany, Venezuela, Russia, Spain, Italy, Cuba, Laos, China, etc. - all of which had tragic unintended consequences.

Mine are not fantasy concerns, Artie. Nor are they a "slippery slope fallacy and/or an inappropriate appeal to consequences." The rule of law is fragile and must be defended, even when the perpetrator of its demise is doing things with which you agree.

You, Arie are confusing your zeal for a vaccination mandate with my argument against the methodology being used to impose it. You're arguing the urgency of the pandemic, and not concern for the pretext-based expansion of federal authority. A vaccination mandate by any means necessary is your argument, and you'll justify any expansion of OSHA's power to get it.

Where will you hide when OSHA decides next to arbitrate an issue that is not strictly a workplace issue under the pretext that because it affects workers, even if outside the workplace, it's within OSHA's scope of authority?

Conan Says:

"Erroneously? I don't think so, Artie. I've never seen you argue for even slight limits on federal power - with anyone on this blog or on any topic; even with those posters on this blog who have argued in favor of expanded federal authority, and there have been a few."

Then you haven't been paying attention or your memory is faulty.

I certainly argued against the outrageous use of federal power to use rubber bullets and teargas on a peaceful Lafayette Square protest.

That was a right enshrined within the 1st amendment that was trampled both figuratively and literally.

That is just one example of an abuse of federal power... it just so happens that folks like your self were in favor of that for some reason.

I am pro public health measures during a pandemic and against shooting at peaceful protestors.

You on the other hand were pro shooting peaceful protestors and are against public health measures during a pandemic.

So quit your nonsense about this being about one of us being for federal power and the other one against it.

I could list all kinds of federal powers I think are stepping over the line... the odds are you probably like those things.

"Artie, you've never presented yourself on this blog as moderate in your political views."

Conan, you and others on this blog are no where near the center.

As a result someone from the center will not appear as moderate to you.

This is a function of your own distorted perceptions... not a reflection of reality.

"NicoleK is an extreme right winger? Leona is an extreme right winger?"

I don't really get into disagreements with either NicoleK or Lenona on these topics.

I have on at least one occasion disagreed with Lenona where I was to the right politically of her.

Look Conan, the concept here is not difficult to understand. Someone who earns 200K a year looks at someone who earns 40K a year as poor and someone who earns 1000K as wealthy.

By contrast the 40K earner looks at both as wealthy and the 1000K looks at both as poor.

You do not appear to have a good idea where you actually land on the political spectrum and hence have a poor idea of where others are on an absolute scale.

It is true that I am to the left of you in terms of politics... but the vast majority of people are to the left of you in terms of politics. You are not anywhere near the center.

"So no, Artie, this is not analogous to the bomber loss problem - a problem that I'm quite familiar with, being a student of both history and of business management. I'm not missing the arguments you don't make - because you're not making them at all."

Then you aren't getting it. If this was an extreme left wing blog I'd be arguing to the right of most of the commenters.

You don't see that here because this blog is really skewed to the political right... it isn't really close even if you have a couple of token folks who make a more left type point every so often.

"Mine are not fantasy concerns, Artie. Nor are they a "slippery slope fallacy and/or an inappropriate appeal to consequences." The rule of law is fragile and must be defended, even when the perpetrator of its demise is doing things with which you agree."

Yes Conan... they are unsubstantiated concerns.

In order to properly establish a slippery slope you have to do the work of demonstrating that it is likely that A leads to B leads to C, etc...

Furthermore, the slippery slope argument is only as strong as the weakest causal relationship in the chain.

You haven't presented any evidence in this area at all... it is just your own imagination running wild.

In any event, federal courts have already started weighing in on these matters so far as the pandemic is concerned.

Please familiarize yourself with Valdez v. Grisham, — F. Supp. 3d —-, 2021 WL 4145746 (D.N.M. 2021)

Here is a summary of that case:

https://www.hrmorning.com/news/vaccine-mandate-2/

"On August 23, 2021, the court denied their request for an emergency order. But it set an expedited briefing schedule on their request for a preliminary injunction. It denied it, finding the plaintiffs couldn’t prove they:

• Are substantially likely to win the case
• will suffer irreparable injury without the court order
• the balance of harms weighs in their favor, and
• the court order would not go against the public interest.

The suit says the mandate violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA); the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights; substantive due process; procedural due process; their rights under Article 1, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution; and their rights under the New Mexico Constitution.

The court found them unlikely to win on any claim."

The courts understand as I do that people objecting to these public health measures are on extremely weak legal ground.

The only hope you have here is an activist SCOTUS that decides to override existing jurisprudence by ignoring stare decisis.

I'm not saying that is impossible... but it isn't the most likely possibility.

Furthermore, I thought folks like you were against things like activist judges, so you shouldn't really be in favor of that result anyway.

Conan,

So I guess you have absolutely no thoughts or anything to say about the fact that the federal courts are on the record expressing precisely what I have been asserting during this entire conversation?

Let's revisit the quote again just for emphasis:

"The court found them unlikely to win on any claim."