The court responds to the arguments made before it. This was a motion for a temporary injunction so all the court said was "there are grave statutory and constitutional concerns" and so the relief was granted.
By the way, no one on the defense was foolish enough to make the kind of arguments you made - e.g. "The Federal Government has a history of regulating medicine, so this executive order is constitutional".
The real debate is whether it is in OSHA's purview to do this, which of course it's not, but with a sympathetic judge and lots of smoke being thrown in people's eyes, there is a hope that courts will overlook that. Most commentators predict this will not be found constitutional, just like the executive order banning evictions -- I mean, seriously?? And notice that there were no arguments saying that CDC actually had the authority to ban evictions, it was just emotionalizing at what bad things evictions are and so of course we should give the CDC this extra-legal authority.
And each time, people on the left are just shocked when the courts strike this down.
Look, you can stay in this bubble and be constantly surprised yourself, or you can dig into the legalities of executive orders on your own as well as this dirty legal history of OSHA. It's not a pretty picture, and you should not support using executive orders to change the scope of authority of regulatory bodies, because one day a President of the other party will be in charge and then you really don't want extra-judicial decrees to carry the force of law.
> This was a motion for a temporary injunction so all the court said was "there are grave statutory and constitutional concerns" and so the relief was granted.
That's right. And two months ago, with a case that had clear and obvious "constitutional concerns" (seriously, it undermined Roe!) they said "Nah, we're good" and refused to stay it. That's the problem here. They aren't making a legal finding at all, they're making a political finding. And you know it.
> The real debate is whether it is in OSHA's purview to do this
Not in this case it isn't. That hasn't even been heard yet. The question is whether or not to stay the mandate only.
rsj_hn|4 years ago
By the way, no one on the defense was foolish enough to make the kind of arguments you made - e.g. "The Federal Government has a history of regulating medicine, so this executive order is constitutional".
The real debate is whether it is in OSHA's purview to do this, which of course it's not, but with a sympathetic judge and lots of smoke being thrown in people's eyes, there is a hope that courts will overlook that. Most commentators predict this will not be found constitutional, just like the executive order banning evictions -- I mean, seriously?? And notice that there were no arguments saying that CDC actually had the authority to ban evictions, it was just emotionalizing at what bad things evictions are and so of course we should give the CDC this extra-legal authority.
And each time, people on the left are just shocked when the courts strike this down.
Look, you can stay in this bubble and be constantly surprised yourself, or you can dig into the legalities of executive orders on your own as well as this dirty legal history of OSHA. It's not a pretty picture, and you should not support using executive orders to change the scope of authority of regulatory bodies, because one day a President of the other party will be in charge and then you really don't want extra-judicial decrees to carry the force of law.
newacct583|4 years ago
That's right. And two months ago, with a case that had clear and obvious "constitutional concerns" (seriously, it undermined Roe!) they said "Nah, we're good" and refused to stay it. That's the problem here. They aren't making a legal finding at all, they're making a political finding. And you know it.
> The real debate is whether it is in OSHA's purview to do this
Not in this case it isn't. That hasn't even been heard yet. The question is whether or not to stay the mandate only.