"Many of the same justices who were in the majority on the first case joined in a dissent on the second. Justice Thomas penned the dissent and was joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Alito also wrote his own dissent and was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett."
I was wondering if I should visit a local breakfast joint to grab a bite before a busy day and read something. I think this dissenting opinion on the HHS case is just what I was looking for. I'm not surprised to see Alito and Thomas on the side against the HHS mandate, but I am surprised to see the Textualist Gorsuch there, as well as Barrett. Should make for an interesting opinion to enjoy over an omelette.
Breakfast was predictably mediocre. (IHOP can't make a decent breakfast burrito, which is no surprise, but a hypothesis I still needed to test.)
As for the opinion, I only read those for the HHS case, but Gorsuch's vote makes more sense, since Thomas is arguing that there is not sufficient law passed by Congress that would empower HHS to impose the mandate on health care workers. The prevailing side argued effectively that there are lots of regulations that HHS has passed with zero controversy related to the practice of medicine in institutions (without Congress's explicit approval), so the vaccine mandate isn't materially different than rules about hand washing and similar kinds of standards.
Alito's dissent had a really interesting argument that despite the emergency nature of the pandemic (as Team Biden claims), it took so long to actually share the text of the rules and set a date for implementing the rules that there's no good reason the Court should not view this as a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and its regular requirements for a public comment period. As a fan of the APA, I think that this was the stronger dissenting argument, even if the prevailing opinion didn't see it that way.
As with most SCOTUS opinion readings, it was a great way to spend time while absorbing calories in the form of a crappy burrito.
So I know now to avoid IHOP burritos. I find the mandate SCOTUS opinions most interesting. Forces justices to cut to the chase balancing serious public safety requirements against the reach of government regulation into the everyday life of citizens. It makes for interesting decisions and justice alliances. The APA reasoning is interesting. Thank you for the summary and the breakfast review too.
It's a tough balancing act. It always will be when Congress and the President allow bureaucrats to fill in too many gaps in the legislation. The agencies will often exceed their authority and the limits of their expertise.
"Many of the same justices who were in the majority on the first case joined in a dissent on the second. Justice Thomas penned the dissent and was joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Alito also wrote his own dissent and was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett."
I was wondering if I should visit a local breakfast joint to grab a bite before a busy day and read something. I think this dissenting opinion on the HHS case is just what I was looking for. I'm not surprised to see Alito and Thomas on the side against the HHS mandate, but I am surprised to see the Textualist Gorsuch there, as well as Barrett. Should make for an interesting opinion to enjoy over an omelette.
Let me know your take on the read and breakfast.
Breakfast was predictably mediocre. (IHOP can't make a decent breakfast burrito, which is no surprise, but a hypothesis I still needed to test.)
As for the opinion, I only read those for the HHS case, but Gorsuch's vote makes more sense, since Thomas is arguing that there is not sufficient law passed by Congress that would empower HHS to impose the mandate on health care workers. The prevailing side argued effectively that there are lots of regulations that HHS has passed with zero controversy related to the practice of medicine in institutions (without Congress's explicit approval), so the vaccine mandate isn't materially different than rules about hand washing and similar kinds of standards.
Alito's dissent had a really interesting argument that despite the emergency nature of the pandemic (as Team Biden claims), it took so long to actually share the text of the rules and set a date for implementing the rules that there's no good reason the Court should not view this as a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and its regular requirements for a public comment period. As a fan of the APA, I think that this was the stronger dissenting argument, even if the prevailing opinion didn't see it that way.
As with most SCOTUS opinion readings, it was a great way to spend time while absorbing calories in the form of a crappy burrito.
So I know now to avoid IHOP burritos. I find the mandate SCOTUS opinions most interesting. Forces justices to cut to the chase balancing serious public safety requirements against the reach of government regulation into the everyday life of citizens. It makes for interesting decisions and justice alliances. The APA reasoning is interesting. Thank you for the summary and the breakfast review too.
It's a tough balancing act. It always will be when Congress and the President allow bureaucrats to fill in too many gaps in the legislation. The agencies will often exceed their authority and the limits of their expertise.
Skip the burritos and go to Waffle House. Two eggs over easy with grits, bacon and toast.