https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-5th-circuit-just-rewarded-a-brazen-heist-of-president-power/ar-AATHFH2?li=BBnb7Kz
Talk about throwing a tantrum…
The majority rewarded anti-vaxxers for gaming the system by asking twelve different federal judges for an injunction before finding one lawless enough to grant one.
First, being against mandates does not make you an “antivaxxer”. This author doesnt even understand who he’s writing about (ok, he’s doing it intentionally, because focusing on the actual arguments doesnt yield the desired outrage, and would…gasp…make the decision look much more rational). Second, this group “found” a judge actually interested in following the law, and the appeals court affirmed this. It remains mind-blowing how following the law regardless of personal bias is now considered “lawlessness”.
The president, of course, is the head of the executive branch, and according to the Supreme Court, he holds all executive power. Although the chief executive often delegates oversight of his roughly 2.1 million employees, he is, as a constitutional matter, their boss. Congress has acknowledged this fact in [a sweeping law](5 U.S. Code § 7301 - Presidential regulations | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute that allows the president to “prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive branch.”
Never before in U.S. history has a single federal judge attempted to seize the president’s authority over his own employees to such a brazen and extreme degree.
But history is filled with examples where employers have been forbidden from mandating things of their workers that were not essential to the performance of their job - which is the essence fo this case and this decision. The whole underlying sentiment is not that “he cant make me”, it’s that there is no acute necessity for such workers to be vaccinated against this virus. Mandate vaccinations for all federal employees over the age of 65 or with at least 3 preexisting health conditions, and it might have a chance of standing. Forcing healthy young adults to be vaccinated in order to remain employed is solely to serve a political agenda and pander to a political base.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson, a moderate Barack Obama nominee, penned a dissent that reflected a kind of stunned outrage. “The public interest is not served,” Higginson wrote, “by a single Article III district judge, lacking public health expertise and made unaccountable through life tenure, telling the President of the United States, in his capacity as CEO of the federal workforce, that he cannot take the same lifesaving workplace safety measures as these private sector CEOs.”
So he completely ignores the legality issues, and simply declares we should do it anyways. This is the lawless response. Yet is the one we’re suppose to cheer?
If there were ever a time for the Supreme Court to rein in this exploitation of judicial power, it is now.
I agree, and this is what we are now seeing happen…
It is about who governs this country: a democratically elected president or an unelected, life-tenured juristocrat.
Um, I’m pretty sure both are expected to enforce the boundaries established by the legislature. We have a democratically elected President, not a democratically elected dictator. It doesnt matter how good someone thinks something may be, they cannot do it if it remains against the law. Funny how the critics keep leaving that part out.