OSHA vaccine mandate stay from 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, “petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate show a great likelihood of success on the merits”, “violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty.”

OSHA vaccine mandate stay from 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, “petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate show a great
likelihood of success on the merits”, “violates the constitutional structure that safeguards our collective liberty.”

“Why are we vaccinating healthy adults when 81 percent of Covid-19 cases are mild and there is  a 99 percent survival rate. Why are we testing vaccines on children who are minimally impacted by the disease?”…Citizen Wells

“I’m not afraid of blowing the whistle “because my faith lies in God and not man … You know, like what kind of person would I be if I knew all of this — this is evil at the highest level. You have the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration], you have the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] CDC, that are both supposed to be protecting us, but they are under the government, and everything that we’ve done so far is unscientific.”..Jodi O’Malley registered nurse

“Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.…Marbury V Madison

From the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals November 12, 2021. BST Holdings et al v OSHA.

“This case concerns OSHA’s most recent ETS—the Agency’s
November 5, 2021 Emergency Temporary Standard (the “Mandate”)
requiring employees of covered employers to undergo COVID-19
vaccination or take weekly COVID-19 tests and wear a mask.
3 An array of petitioners seeks a stay barring OSHA from enforcing the Mandate during
the pendency of judicial review. On November 6, 2021, we agreed to stay the
Mandate pending briefing and expedited judicial review. Having conducted
that expedited review, we reaffirm our initial stay.”

“On the afternoon of the Mandate’s publication, a diverse group of
petitioners (including covered employers, States, religious groups, and
individual citizens) moved to stay and permanently enjoin the mandate in
federal courts of appeals across the nation. Finding “cause to believe there
are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate,” we
intervened and imposed a temporary stay on OSHA’s enforcement of the
Mandate. For ease of judicial review, and in light of the pressing need to act
immediately, we consolidated our court’s petitions under the case number
captioned above.”

“But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate[] exercise[]”
of this “extraordinary power.” Cf. Pub. Citizen, 702 F.2d at 1155. Quite the
opposite, rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-sizefits-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.”

“Accordingly, the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate show a great
likelihood of success on the merits, and this fact weighs critically in favor of
a stay.
B.
It is clear that a denial of the petitioners’ proposed stay would do them
irreparable harm. For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden

theliberty interests21 of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between
their job(s) and their jab(s). For the individual petitioners, the loss of
constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of
time . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427
U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even
minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).

Likewise, the companies seeking a stay in this case will also be
irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay, whether by the business and
financial effects of a lost or suspended employee, compliance and monitoring
costs associated with the Mandate, the diversion of resources necessitated by
the Mandate, or by OSHA’s plan to impose stiff financial penalties on
companies that refuse to punish or test unwilling employees. The Mandate
places an immediate and irreversible imprint on all covered employers in
America, and “complying with a regulation later held invalid almost always
produces the irreparable harm of nonrecoverable compliance costs.” See
Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405, 433 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Thunder Basin Coal
Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 220–21 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and
in the judgment)).”

“For similar reasons, a stay is firmly in the public interest. From
economic uncertainty to workplace strife, the mere specter of the Mandate
has contributed to untold economic upheaval in recent months. Of course,
the principles at stake when it comes to the Mandate are not reducible to
dollars and cents. The public interest is also served by maintaining our
constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make
intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or
perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials.”

Read more:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60845-CV0.pdf

Read more here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

https://parler.com/profile/Citizenwells/posts