[newacct583]

So depressing. The argument was that there are "grave constitutional concerns" with allowing implementation of the mandate (which is odd to begin with, considering that medical practice regulation like this has been done by the federal government for centuries).

Note that this is exactly the same panel of the same circuit court that found two months ago that the Texas abortion law (which clearly intersected with an existing right found by SCOTUS, that was its whole point!) was perfectly fine and not worth enjoining until a specific case came up.

This is just lawless. It's hard to imagine a more politically motivated judiciary than the fifth circuit right now. SCOTUS went along last time, I can only pray they come to their sense this round.

[rsj_hn]

> medical practice regulation like this has been done by the federal

Yes, by law, but not executive order. OSHA was established to limit workplace injury. There is a long history of trying to use OSHA to regulate workplaces in ways that exceed the authorizing legislation, and each of them have been ruled unconstitutional.

> medical practice regulation like this has been done by the federal government for centuries

You know who doesn't do medical regulation? OSHA. Because they are not authorized to do it. You want to use "The Federal Government" to mandate a vaccine -- then pass a law.

> Note that this is exactly the same panel of the same circuit court that found two months ago that the Texas abortion law

You know the difference between the Texas abortion law and this executive order? One was a law, the other a decree.

Don't try to excuse rule by decree on the grounds that vaccines are good. Pass a law requiring them, but don't try to impose them via executive order. Respect the law.

> This is just lawless.

The executive order was lawless. If you want to mandate a vaccine, then pass legislation. If you think you can ban increases in rent, then do that via legislation. If you think CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant under the EPA, then pass legislation.

Stop trying to rule via executive order, and you can start moaning about lawlessness when actual laws, rather than decrees, are dismissed in the courts.

[newacct583]

You're making up arguments that the fifth didn't even bother to, though. If that was their reasoning, then why didn't they say so?

[nickff]

The ninth circuit gets far more cases reversed than the fifth, and the sixth has the worst record upon review (though they don’t get many reviewed).

https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...

[newacct583]

This isn't about getting it Right or Wrong though. This is about making pre-trial injunction decisions based on baldly partisan reasoning. The 9th and 6th may have a "partisan" view of jurisprudence, but they're consistently so. The fifth is making shit up. That's the lawless part. They don't care, they just want their side to win.