Lurker > Webmaster4531

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

---

Ad Hominem.

Stop harassing WEEWEI
---

Ad Hominem.

No one ever knows.
---

Ad Hominem.

Stop harassing Duncanwii by blocking him.
---

Ad Hominem.

F1areaGaman posted...

At the end of the day, the government can't force you to put something in your body, period. It's too great a leap. Our country will never allow it and to do so would set a precedence for other draconian laws---it'll never happen in our lifetime.

It's take the vaccine, test, or quit. None of which is a forced selection. The government had the power to mandate vaccines since 1904.
---

Ad Hominem.

RamboCell29 posted...

Good, the federal government has no right to make private business log vaccine and health records of their employees. It also cannot make private business pay for testing like this.

https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/section_2

(1) by encouraging employers and employees in their efforts to reduce the number of occupational safety and health hazards at their places of employment, and to stimulate employers and employees to institute new and to perfect existing programs for providing safe and healthful working conditions;

...

(3) by authorizing the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting interstate commerce, and by creating an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission for carrying out adjudicatory functions under the Act;

RamboCell29 posted...

If you support this mandate you have to understand how it could be abused in the future. Do you really want a president mandating, without passing legislation, rules to make you inject something into your body or lose your livelihood?

OSHA legislation was passed in 1970 and it outright says it needs to be for safe and healthful working conditions.

They've had the power to mandate vaccines for 110+ years.
---

Ad Hominem.

They'll also say it's proof vaccines don't work.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

Ladies and gentlemen, this guy.

Ladies and gentlemen, Tropical is the epitome of Dunning Kruger.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

What are you even deflecting to now.

Questions end with a question mark.

Tropicalwood posted...

You first try to claim OSHA has standing,

I proved it.
Webmaster4531 posted...

The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief.

Tropicalwood posted...

then you try to claim all those states aren't being harmed.

Statements end with a period. It's obvious you're illiterate.
---

Ad Hominem.

There's a saying that goes "IGN ten out of ten." basically making fun of the fact they rate mostly everything that high.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

Just stop already. Standing is a legal doctrine made up by the court to dismiss cases prior to any evidence being presented.

Imagine telling someone to stop being correct while hypocritically being still hung up on #StopTheSteal bullshit. It's been a year, tropical.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

Just suck it up, you didn't know what standing is so you're backpedaling faster than Biden on the vaccines.

, anyone who can read the bolded above isn't going to side with you.

DrizztLink posted...

Don't they in some regard, defendant becoming the appellant?

I said I didn't know and I'm not a lawyer. Seems pretty confusing if they did switch.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

Didn't you just say standing is whether or not OSHA had the power to create such an absurd regulation meant to force companies to lay off employees on the basis of their employees' medical history.

I said OSHA has standing to enforce occupational safety and health. Which is true.

"In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine."

Anyways pretty sure the plantiff and defendants don't swap every court ladder.
---

Ad Hominem.

They were just smokescreens to hide the fact they were discontinuing the 3DS.
---

Ad Hominem.

Are they fixing bridges? Honestly there's lots of reasons not to give a shit about a nothing law unless it fixes a pothole in your street.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

My lord, I didn't think I'd see an interpretation of standing worse than from a twitter lawyer. But the year is 2021 on the CE message board of gamespot.gamefaqs.

How are Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah being harmed?
---

Ad Hominem.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't really know if

"The states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah are among the plaintiffs."

Swap to defendants.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

What? That's not what standing is. Standing has nothing to do with any of that. Lack of standing is just an excuse for the court to dismiss a case regardless of the facts because the plaintiff wasn't suffering damages (or more specifically because the case is political and the court refuses to do their job.)

Your bitter feelings over Jan 6th's failure have nothing to do with anything.

OSHA has standing to enforce occupational safety and health standards.
There is not a less restrictive way to protect people from COVID-19.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

No you demanded an explanation while acting like you know everything. Which clearly you didn't, because I just gave you an example of standing and it flew over your head like a $5 fine from a state health board.

TILed: Polite as shit "I'd love to hear..." is a cold blooded deadly demand.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

You really don't understand standing, and you want to complain about the most blatant example. What a joke.

I think you're illiterate and Dunning Krugering hard.

How does O.S.H.A. which means Occupational Safety & Health Administration not have standing in occupational safety and health?
---

Ad Hominem.

"This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[5] therefore the Act states that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."[6]

The law provided an exception if two conditions are met. First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest."[6] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[7] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest."

Is there a less restrictive way to make sure workers are safe from COVID-19? No, looking at how everything turned out.
---

Ad Hominem.

Tropicalwood posted...

You clearly have no idea what standing is, or what Jacobson was.

I'd love to hear your explanation.
---

Ad Hominem.

M_Live posted...

I've never actually seen them say anything that warrants a ban myself.

Same.
---

Ad Hominem.

VioletMassacre posted...

That's not how it works.

Yeah, Allen ignored it.
---

Ad Hominem.

VioletMassacre posted...

He really thinks he's going to get automatically modded even for not breaking the rules. >_>

They got banned without breaking the rules.
---

Ad Hominem.

Pandamonic posted...

The fuck did he even do?

No one ever knows in these things.
---

Ad Hominem.

Stop harassing SapphicBoy
---

Ad Hominem.