Her price is far above rubies.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...nt_opinion_staying_oshas_vaccine_mandate.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...nt_opinion_staying_oshas_vaccine_mandate.html
OSHA's authority regarding issuing an ETS is also extremely narrow, requiring a grave danger from exposure to hazardous substances, toxic agents, or new hazards, all of which require urgent intervention. ETSes are "'an 'unusual response' to 'exceptional circumstances'" (p. 8, citations omitted). The legal standard is that this "extraordinary power" must be "delicately exercised" and only in "limited situations" (ibid.).
To meet the legal requirements, OSHA would have had to act with incredible speed to issue a narrowly crafted mandate drilling into the places with the highest risk. (Perhaps targeting the New York subways or American meatpacking plants in Spring 2020.) Instead, notes the court, the mandate came almost two years into the virus's depredations and almost two long months after the president declared there was an emergency requiring a mandate. Moreover:
In another gem of a paragraph, the Court describes the mandate as "fatally flawed on its own terms." Thus:
And of course, there's chief of staff Klain's retweet, which the Court suggests is an admission that using OSHA was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the president's constitutional inability to issue such a mandate.
To meet the legal requirements, OSHA would have had to act with incredible speed to issue a narrowly crafted mandate drilling into the places with the highest risk. (Perhaps targeting the New York subways or American meatpacking plants in Spring 2020.) Instead, notes the court, the mandate came almost two years into the virus's depredations and almost two long months after the president declared there was an emergency requiring a mandate. Moreover:
[R]ather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers' varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly "grave danger" the Mandate purports to address. (p. 8)
In another gem of a paragraph, the Court describes the mandate as "fatally flawed on its own terms." Thus:
[T]he Mandate's strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a "grave danger" in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat). (p. 6)
And of course, there's chief of staff Klain's retweet, which the Court suggests is an admission that using OSHA was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the president's constitutional inability to issue such a mandate.