This broadcaster has 572 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
January 7, 2022 12:00 pm
Along with analysis of arguments on call 1-800-684-3110.
Now your likely Jay Sekulow here and I were doing this remote because we got whether in our headquarters for media Center so what were the broadcast everyone were to give me an analysis of what is still going on right now which of your logs. Why the Supreme Court of United States regarding the vaccine mandate issue now. It was interesting that what is all play here and I want to be clear. Technically, most of this law goes into effect on Monday so there were applications for space file, which means an application to ask the court to not want to affect until a decision is made on the constitutionality of the mandate we have chosen mandate not based on science because I am as you know I'm an advocate of vaccine by make her own decision, but I'm clearly an advocate of vaccine that said that I continue to believe that in that position that I personally have legally speaking that is constitutionally speaking. I think that the OSHA agency that's been tasked with this does not have that authority constitutionally or statutorily. Interestingly, the beginning, the case was argued and we were very very concerned on how it start in a court honestly will limit decision for the law goes into effect on Monday unless there's a saying that goes into effect in phases. The vaccine records are if you been vaccinating you better send us your boards. I've Artie done that year. Other organizations work, work with affiliated started that process already as well and then masks for those that are not vaccinated goes into effect is according to the government was first reported by the way this way on Monday and attesting in early February that.
Having said all of that in the beginning of this argument. It looks very bleak for the position that there was no statutory authority, and that was incredibly wasn't being argued somberly go quickly here, depending on the time we have been to Andy and any person any never predict fire oral argument is missing oral argument is still going on is were alive.
That's absolutely right. You never can predict from an oral argument. What the court is going to do what a jury is going to do for that matter. But in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The arguments continue and you cannot predict why that first I thought we would not get a state that is I went on and the justices began arguing our case for us.
In many respects, I began to see light at the end of the tunnel and saw that there would be an grabs think that there will be a brief administrative state based on the arguing, based on the questions that were put to the solicitor Gen. by the justices, especially Justice Alito and Justice Roberts. Yeah, I don't know if we have, we do have that actual question reply will run it because we deliver motor from time to time with time running okay let's play this is actually that is you and you just raised. This is the question about whether a station visa which is what we been arguing this CTS was issued a couple of months ago is now November and December 5 all right and hasn't been in force during that period. In these cases arrived at this court, just a short time ago. They present lots of difficult comp. Issues we have hundreds of pages of briefing were receiving very helpful commence this morning does the federal government shacks to our taking a couple of dates maybe to think about this to digest the arguments before people start losing jobs. Alito if you're asking whether it would be appropriate for the court to issue a brief administrative state certainly think it would be in the courts prerogative think that it's necessary to do that, ultimately, for the injunction that there actually asking for here the applicant to show an indisputably clear right to relief, which we think they can. All right we will be back in just a few minutes is Logan Sekulow by the way, we are taking your calls at 1-800-684-3110. That's what 100 684-3110. I did also want to be clear, severe asking, why are we remote look outside right now you know that we got about 6 inches of snow and we can get into the studio this weekend. We got some amazing crew people who did get in to make sure you get this broadcast with a golden forget their all right will be right back with more on secular calls 164, 31 to the challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our value freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice. ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms and then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you Knott's well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless dessert. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice defend the rights of life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally pro-life support and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to the pro-life discover many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/broadcast everyone live analysis of report argument that if you are watching us live or listen. It was like going on. Still, right now it's only vaccine mandate. If you know the way to the minute set up. You either are vaccinated with as I said everybody in our process are more you get tested once a week and have a newer mask in the workplace that goes into effect. This person really hurt as the federal government conceding basically that the testing doesn't go into effect, which is what I understand until February, but that the masked requirement. If you not vaccinated goes into effect on Monday. I which you obviously are anybody that is got over hundred employees has to get now. What's interesting here is the argument started out pretty pretty difficult. I will be honest. I mean, I did not see a lot of sympathy for our positions and I got a little bit better as it went on, although I think someone just text me that justice, basically indicated that they view the back survey covered viruses and was like a bio weapon on biohazard so it can be very interesting.
But remember, this is up want to stay at Terry Hutchison involved in this was instrumental in working on this case with our team is also a law professor. Of course, and sing account for the ACLJ your read on it as where we are right now me. Obviously it's the case is still going on quotes as at work talking. I think the court acted fairly slowly in terms of the moral argument in clarifying what the mandate actually need. But once they took the lack of a better term affirmative action and were engaged they made several things clear. First, stated it is clear that the mandate at issue. If not stated by the court does not require any testing buying employees before February 9. Second, the mandate allows for a religious exemption and any application of this mandate to employ to employees must allow for a related exemption for face particular penalties for acting outside of the mandate for the court doubt that the federal government has brought unlimited police power to issue a countrywide mandate. Therefore, there is support by at least three maybe four justices for the proposition that the mandate exceeds the scope of OSHA's power, and more importantly, the court admit that the vaccine poses a risk to individuals and therefore this mandate imposes some risk on employee and therefore the vaccine mandate should be waived by each individual employee opposed to some bureaucrat in Washington DC. The question is for boats is great but five carries a case the way I understand the mandate now and Harry 90s I think we got clear it was under the impression that everything went into effect money than the solicitor Gen. United States got up and said no, wait a minute. This is why think she's trying to defeat a state. Frankly, she said no they vaccine card acquisition from your staff has to be done before now. But that's an administrative continent. Everybody could do would run were doing and everybody can do a lot of a lot of affiliated entities up with apps are doing it to then when everybody is under the impression that the testing and the masked requirement. If you're unvaccinated was to go into effect Monday to no penalties until February for that compliance but it went into effect good faith attempt. She seemed to modify that as I played earlier and saying you know it goes into effect in inventor and play that it will find that one so it's it's still a bit confusing. The problem is and and Harry.
I don't disagree with what you're saying except think five boats to carry the issue and I think the mistake I continue to be made here is arguing the efficacy of the vaccine because I think it's beyond dispute that impacted your vaccinated your life slept less likely to be seriously ill, that is beyond dispute does not answer the legal question, however, asked to whether OSHA had the authority.
This is what we went back to Andy is a question of administrative authority that is lacking here JI Lucas, who had made those who are arguing on behalf of of the employers in the state would've made that clear. Instead of getting into the signs and into the medicine. I wish that they would've made clear early on by some of the justices did only in questioning of the solicitor Gen. that we are arguing a legal position here and that is that the federal government has no role in this under the Constitution of the United States, the central government is a government of delegated. That is a limited powers, and the remaining powers best with the states under the 10th amendment. Now that is an argument that I did not hear.
With the clarity I would have wanted to hear come out of the petitioners.
That is the employers in the states in the early part of the argument I've heard every bit of the argument from the very beginning when the case was called through to the time we went on there and I wish I had a hurting. I still being argued. Right now I'm in so they maybe addressing it, but they argue right now. Still yeah that could come up. Let me say this, I want to play this is for those of you that her employers were trying to really practical here for employers. This is what the Department of Justice, the solicitor Gen.'s office has now set as the effective date of the various aspects of this mandate, I think it would be helpful for employers and employees.
So here's what was the questions of focusing on questions about why it's taking so long to get action taken was paralyzed and lost every day. I'm sorry brief compared to what the months that it is usually the months that it hasn't been in effect since November whenever it is in the courts have been active in this area are brief, brief compared to what I think the agency well explained. Employers who are covered by the stated time to come into compliance. The agency and exercise enforcement discretion because of the confusion that had been created by the Fifth Circuit stay Navy would be helpful for me to explain exactly what great deadline means with respect to compliance.
The agency for employers who are acting in good faith is not going to enforce any of the provisions of this ETF until January 10. As a practical matter is that employers need to be adopting their policies need to be ascertaining the confirmation status of their employees generally attempting to be requiring for any employees who remain needed immediately and played employees are going to be quitting their jobs are leaving in response to diverse predictions on January 10. If the standard remains in the fact that he will immediately be required in the testing can on February 9. So the way I understand now is your vaccinated, get your vaccine information at your employer for over 100 employees, your portion set up. They probably set some kind of portal as we did you get that if you're not vaccinated, you're going to have to wear a mask in your in the office space in the testing requirement. According to the solicitor Gen. doesn't going to back out until February 9 when we got a call let's go ahead and try to take a call regarding writer online will want you to Donna welcome here I die I call me as I only got three minutes ago I had okay, I will not a medical leave. I work for a large telecommunications company indicated that by February 1. Everybody who worked in the office but that I've been working from home for a year there has been no timeline that I need to go back into the office, but apparently I'm temporary work at home. I have to be vaccinated. Even though I'm not going to the office whether not really because your individual employer could still put requirements in different than what OSHA is mandating that it was an individual private employer could still say required vaccinations of our employees usually requires some kind of nexus to the workplace, not your job was permanently at home that might be different but your go into that office. They had the right to do that. In fact, they have the right to confuse what a private company can do what the government is trying to do here and there two different things. Private employers and some private employers have said we're gonna have a vaccine mandate in place. And private employers can do that. There's religious exemptions are there's those kind of things but the mandate isn't that and I think that's what is the critical aspect of this everything is looking up, looking at the argument that's going on still on these cases right now as were live. But again I think Kerry really have a minute and 30 seconds left to give me a 45 second I get a feeling we may get a at least a temporary reprieve in an administrative stay sometime this afternoon I again judged by oral argument.
I've done enough of them to know that but what's your second sense of. I agree with you today. I very that you'll get a stay of 48 to 72 hours. Yeah, I think it could be short, and he said that the good thing about that for employers and employees that gives us a time to figure out if what the solicitor Gen. said is actually the federal government policy which give us a limit warming to implement. This is a general duty of care your employees in the workplace. People know that we put in the filtration system affect our employees and socialism were doing everything we can.
But again, this requirements are ongoing. You give your analysis will take your call over to tell you what to do to get you want to be on call right now. If you have your thoughts and opinions. You're listening to the case. A lot of us have this morning. Would love to hear from you. What 100 684-3110. Check out all the great content email@example.com if you want your social media make sure you are sharing this with all of your friends describe on YouTube will be right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defend the rights of life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to start constitutional rights are under attack is important whenever the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public and we have an exceptional track record of success. Here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member.
Thank you thoughts well this is the perfect time to stand with us.
ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ hundred 64 3110. We are doing the show remotely today.
If you're curious about maybe the quality difference here watching online, that is because we had a pretty massive snowstorm we have a few slight crewmembers are able to make it in.
Want to thank them for their doing it because without that we will do the show we do the shows are very important as the cases on going. The Supreme Court loves listening this morning that one of the things I want to bring up with you, dad for week to talk about this is there at least was above brought up to a lot of us as employers were concerned about the testing requirement is that right now getting test is not easy.
Whether you look at the at-home test to try to find them, or even the hours and hours of lines and that was brought up. It was sort of shrugged off yeah we come to do the analysis that we think that's my bet is that maybe why now looks like testing may be pushed until February. Look I wanted. I told you in our brief and in the way I wanted to present the argument in case what I would got up and set, and I think is what Justice Leo said not in any way aggregating effectiveness of vaccines. I'm an advocate and an that's you could start that way so you can't get that out of the way as number one, number two, the fact of the matter is, the world has changed since since this ETS emergency temporary order cake standards came into effect because now the exemption is either vaccine or for testing a mask getting test are very difficult and the way the test has to be administered is not easy either.
So what you have is a situation where it's almost like a legal impossibility and I think what you saw in that and that's probably why the solicitor Gen. wisely I think conceited that they will not put the testing aspect of it in place until February 9 above the masking is going to affect in general the statutes that were the rule says emergency order that that's how they're interpreting so it's safe to say it's clear it's not. It's far from clear. But I think it least it gives you a sense of where this could go where it is going and how to interpret it because it is very difficult for the workplace is very difficult for the employer any and frankly any employee here and I was can ask you this one little Texan because I want to play some sound.
It seems like that concession of the important implementation of the of the order of the regulation standard.
They were kind of I think I can't read the mind of the solicitor Gen., but it seems to me that she said that because they know how difficult it really yes to comply. Well I think that's true, and I think the justices pushed her into a corner where they made actually admit that there are complications in this level the rule and in this mandate, or whatever you want to call it the need to be sorted out and before you can do that you start penalizing people. That's not fair. And so she made a concession which I think was a major concession that had not been made up to this point and that is masks on Monday but testing and penalties. Not till February 9. Now that is something that we had not heard from OSHA until this very morning and then concession the injured Visio in the cord by the solicitor Gen. become the de facto the position of always shine there stuck with it now and the justices have heard that and they're going to make a decision on the weather grant this administrative state based upon that representation made to them by the solicitor Gen. of the United States.
J yes so the interesting part about it is that they could just say whatever this case and it essentially becomes the law because we would try to implement all these policies so they put out something new and that you shifted to where will bakers of the New exit de facto changes their title policy that seems great to people I didn't get very frustrated with this is can get just thrown out there and all of a sudden everything that we just told our employees. We had to do even there we don't want to read all we had to do now gets shifted because someone is Supreme Court case just off David Lisa's judgment about any scrap solicitor Gen. binds the agency. They are the agency's lawyer department office represents OSHA and date bind the agency's of the agencies now positioned their new regulation is no testing according to what I sent this report until February 9. Now it's interesting about that is does that the people in need for an administrative state. I would argue it doesn't because install all other aspects of comply. That's why I think that the department Justice came up with that position. I thought it was actually a pretty quick move quickly and I was there when you're up there bobbing and weaving. If you are about to let the boxing analogy when you are bobbing and weaving and you think about all these things while this case is going on in and I think that was their idea. Maybe we can defeat the administrative state doesn't affect the long-term stay so much outcome with decision and it probably makes but will say to me where we met with me makes a statement issued today or mark not a very good sign Cordell on Facebook.
They asked about specifically the heritage suit that we are a part of their curious if this is a part of that and how do they choose who gets to argue what why are we up there doing that right okay okay so that's not our case. Actually, we represent the heritage foundation that can't case has been accepted by the Supreme Court as part of all of this, but they only see what you're saying is about two hours of oral argument for basically four cases of really more like 12 cases we will argument our various small not insignificant, but a small part of the briefing that goes into this is where the real meat of the work we are briefs were filed, accepted, reviewed part of the record. It's part of the case.
We have a case. What happens so that oral argument was basically by the government. So that's the solicitor Gen.'s office represent United States and in the state of Ohio and then one of the lawyers representing the national independent business federation. So that's how about we set up and but our case it will be directly impacted by all of this.
Obviously, an that's why getting the case up.
There was such a big deal. It's complicated, you're seeing a play outcome is complicated to comply. It's it's a complicated situation and then the atmospherics are great right now we all know that that's is the reality of the of the situation is quite well and I'm probably not really a two minutes left, but let me go back to Harry here for a moment, assume we get the hair where they something about his, she conceded that an administrative thing might be appropriate, and then said that the testing doesn't want practical.
February try to cut it up your own administrative say, but like you said administrative state that you want a couple of days. Yeah, I think it probably gets to a maximum of three days. I doubt it would go longer than that, but I would also concede that the court have to look at tons and tons of briefing I would also say that the counsel for the national independent Association Federation did not do a good job on the constitutional issues at stake in the federalism federalism issue at stake today and so I think initially, my assessment was this argument against the vaccine mandate was going to go down in flames. I try to not criticize work on their argument the case because unless you've been there and done it. It's very easy to criticize when you're out there having to do it ex-cop and lucky you had an argument you don't also know what the clients were requesting your not trying to offend, and I just try to save when you're the advocate up there. It's difficult. I would've argued it differently. No question.
But everybody's got thrown picnic style in an illegal now I think I'm a little bit better towards the end will save. I we got another half-hour loving, that's right, you don't get your local station.
Join us live right now on Facebook and YouTube, NaCl. J.org we are broadcasting live on all those outlets make sure you are watching that you share like, to check out our great work ACLJ.org Show later on as well.
I the podcast feed on ACLJ.org NACLJ Apple direct ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights importance in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today NACLJ keeping you informed and now this is J secular like a work after the calling a play-by-play because the reality of this argument we talked about still going over lot so I'm dealing with what we were doing the best now so we can what's up with the mandate which it requires a vaccine or the alternative, a test and a and wearing a mask of your workplace.
It seemed early on that there were not a lot of support for issuing this day I that's why the case started out there was skepticism by a lot of justices, including Justice Thomas.Justice Alito Justice Robertson address is not exactly seem to become more aggressive on our position, which is the lack of statutory authority to implement it now.
The government made a huge concession. I think trying to defeat the need for us day by saying that while the vaccine issue. If you're vaccinated you got it by your vaccine card, your employer is not a big big issue you put it up and testing. If you're not vaccinated actually doesn't want affect until February which is think about it the way that the situation is now missing was done in October September October in the world is changed a lot, and that's why these things don't work but the real issue that should have been addressed head-on in my view was what the President said was that there was in fact no federal solution to this that it's up to the states, which is the position we taken, and (by my present buying directly with them on that. He agreed last and secondly, that the there was a lack of statutory and constitutional authority.
Statutory first before they have the constitutional because of the lack of statutory authority would avoid the ability of this agency to be the agency that quickness mandate in place. So having said all that I keep looking at my screen missing about saying anything that's coming up.
My sense right now is that we have a situation Logan where we may see a short-term administrative say that's possible and we may we may not and we don't think that now the testing is required until February 9 so we may see everybody maybe modifying their positions based on that US a great question which is can a government lawyer binding agency and the answer is yes pretty crazy thing for a lot of people to hear that. Just the simple changes can really throw everything into effect. Now we had that situation will be when you watch this case where it didn't seem like the government lawyers conceded a little bit. They were conceding yeah maybe you could do a stay. Maybe you could do it. A delay they give themselves wiggle room.
Of this, knowing that the testing situation is what it is were the other side didn't give as much was that an interesting place. You think and I think this was smart in saying that if they could be appropriate on a limited basis. I think you're smart consenting that the testing men they will go to affect until February.
That means according to a full opinion on that because if you already vaccinated. The only thing you show your heart and that's it so I think a less extreme, it sure did. I think that that's good lawyering when you break the position or not it's good Lord, I think the prop problem with some of the positions that were being advocate at least early on in my view, what we was scaring the court because there was this statement that this is great danger and great concern but but but you know she can't do anything. That sounds really extreme instead of getting up and say lactose that dirty party test the mandate can be put in effect we could take them out right but again I am not criticize the lawyers representing the case because there are ones out there and me to criticize me when I want cases 90 minutes are critical when you were 90. They are during the argument, so I blame the lawyers they had clients to commune with the client state of Ohio. I observed requirements they wanted issue they wanted lap so those are normal kind of things that you have in place. But having said all that were still using and looking down looking at were still analyzing this as were calling it live but that's exactly and giving the best mouse will take her phone because we come back as well of the questions on this.
That's right. Take phone calls 164.
31. Intensive lines are open right now. We just cause already ready to go to the next few segments, 1-800-684-3110 was a special guest artist later in the show as well, but again 1-800-684-3110 to have your voice heard on this critical issue right now and always support the work of the ACLJ got ACLJ.org look at the amazing work you were doing in the great content were produced challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success.
But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms then remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times.
The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you Knott's well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing from a member today ACLJ only one.
A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice.
Is there any hope for that culture to survive.
And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pieces were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the Obama care means to the many ways your membership in the is empowering the right question for copy mission life today online ACLJ/this Logan Sekulow jumped right to the calls are felt like a completely Jacob Q: what hundred 684 30 went to Mike Pompeo will be joining us in the final site of the show to wrap us up with good reasons calling online one from California really are there and I want to know if they just violate the Constitution and allow the illegal federal mandate to scan what we the people recourse to protect ourselves legally against them doing that, but possible at the Scrimgeour Justices say that it's not unconstitutional if the mandate nonconstitutional than the law of the land. I would be clear this is not unconstitutional.
She could disagree with anything this when court got it wrong, but that does not equate to a situation where you can then go violate the law. You do that at your own peril, including serious penalties and fines in this particular case, so the law will be determined by the Supreme Court hearing date. Address the merits, you know, it's a temporary water so I you know any one of the things I thought about it once they make the decision that there is no not eclipse but there's 15 different ways this could go they can make decisions in it. Back in the thick circuit. I mean, so know anything Andy here definitive until we get the decision from the court. But what we do know definitive is it to say that the mandate isn't that constitutional law that said that's over. That's why it's called the Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort, and if the Supreme Court of the United States says that the mandate is constitutional, so be it. That ends that you follow the law you do with the law says.
Until and unless the Supreme Court decides if they ever do to reverse themselves, but you don't go violating the law, so you have no alternative. That's why it's called, as I said, the Supreme Court of the United States. But Harry, there's another to be to just find an employer that's you it's hard.
Easier said than done is less than 100 employees and is not good to be via the following sadly to say the case, but maybe that's your only real option except a private employer with less than 100 employees could still impose a mandate themselves on this is just whether the government could do a private employer certainly can put these in place subject to religious freedom and freedom of of Nevada conscience issues, but I mean I generally those would be difficult. In a case like this so private employer certainly could do it. Mimicking the question here.
I guess Harry is that's a good 11 to is somebody different ways.
The Supreme Court go, especially in light of the solicitor Gen. intentional. I would say concession about the application of the testing requirement that it really could go a lot of different ways your way.
It's very hard to predict. I think you're absolutely to leave the government mandated mandate for practical purposes does not really go into a factor, presumably until 9 February.
So in some respects, the government is asking for not directly, of course, and administrative stay till that particular date or basically saying okay. We are not going to go after employers of the second point of course is that in order for OSHA to go after employers. Based on my understanding of the law there some disagreement on this vein may need cooperation from state OSHA department. I don't know last night and that's can depend on this, the various states have different rules on that. So there's like 21 states. I think that have state houses that implicate on these issues. There are 28 states that do not or something. I missed 50 states on them but it was like 21 or 22 that did work at your right you can get very confusing, except if they don't issue was that, at which point the law of the Supreme Court is basically what the law going to affect what I think the four justices that would clearly do that one was the technical side got a bid from North Dakota online to your earlier I take my call. I did have a simple question. What is the our employee legally obligated to provide that your employer at the private employer could number one requirement and they have the right to do that if you're vaccinated to detach for your card is proof and then and then have that for OSHA private employers can mandate that themselves. Private employers have other employers don't. So it's it's this issue is whether OSHA whether federal agency has the authority to do this and that's what's being really debated right now. We had another call came in the just dropped. I think we should ask the question answered, and I was with Doug in Texas. Doug, sorry about that. He said he understands all the cases are consolidated will be ACLJ :-) be specifically considered by the Supreme Court had states. How does that work. Yes, all the race everything has been consolidated. There's been multiple orders but yes all of our brief work, separate file, read how the courts do it and the courts properties in great detail and the opinion in these two cases will have will be the opinion all of the cases. So all we are seeing today and I it's a great question.
It just me oral argument portion.
There are hundreds of thousands of pages of briefs filed in this case would literally within a couple of weeks, thousands of pages between both sides of that's all there update on how long this will take until we have at least some kind of decision that people are expecting the potential W stage you think of the beast that you think will know relatively quickly that what is a decision because Loctite Republicans report that they give these arguments happen then six months later we get a decision okay so here's the thing.
I think it working again and administrative stay we get it today or tomorrow, Sunday at the latest. If we don't get in the ministry to stay by the weekend.
I think it's not a great sign Andy what you think.
I agree with you. I think if there's going to be an administrative stay granted in the case is going to be granted after the conference this afternoon. It could be as light as society time tonight. The court's orders 24 seven.
It could be tomorrow could be Monday Sunday.
I think if we get a stay will however come before Monday when the mascot is a mandate was going to affect the new mass mandate. I would say because they change their policy and echo handbook. I didn't online for danger on the air. Thank you so much for all night and all the time to try to get the question for a while.
I don't see how anything you a man calculating or these vaccines could be mandated case Bob is clearing Delbert Rumsfeld that nothing is way could be mandated. There is no commodity units not being produced. The Fifth Circuit already definitively found that it not avail the Fifth Circuit case was that all the cases were consolidated to the Sixth Circuit. The most multi-jurisdiction statute. What that means is circuit decision was basically left in place until the Sixth Circuit ruled for the rest of the country and they did and they held that the mandate that was constitutional that included a Republican appointee to the six circuit Court of Appeals then what happened was the cases went to the Supreme Court of the United States. We request along with everybody else and administrative stay pending the disposition we get that initially stay. The opinion stated affect the opinion of the Sixth Circuit right now is in effect, which has the mandate going into effect with the now modified. If you are that the testing requirement will not take place until February.
Notice technical. We got a lot of employees, a lot of employers are listening abroad as a primary equivocate that effectively login as you asked. Then modify that rule taken by his repetitious putting us that the FDA has also approved these vaccines. That's is no longer just emergency use authorization for at least the initial doses. That's correct coming so I come up much of the that would not be part of the argument do we have any other calls or is that your producers could tell us are administered. I said the word good right we get with the screening calls will take Ms. McKevitt right now we're start to wrap up the show for Clausewitz but the next segment were to be joined by Mike Pompeo will be joining us to discuss all these issues and I talked about the great kind of ugly if you read his content. He puts on ACLJ.org every week. I encourage all to go to ACLJ.org and read some of the great content that is there and see the great videos of the series. All the great stuff we put out there this is just a secure what you want to let our day is just a small small portion.
It's kinda like me oral argument is the small portion of the overall scope of what we do is organization in the car to the reproduce. You know what I want to thank our team and team improver room very odd pressure roadways and I got them safely which was that if you can get insight don't go but they didn't work.
That's why weren't all in different locations literally all corpus and someplace else because of the technology that were able to do this but on Facebook, YouTube, whatever problem whatever you're watching is on right now and also our radio stations around the country because of your support for the ACLJ so I want to say you think it work team.
I want to put this back in perspective what is being asked what's up.
As the court is an application for a long-term stay in a short-term stay so that this doesn't go into effect Monday. A longer term say that the case can be considered the Department of Justice solicitor Gen. who finds the agency here said that the masking requirement will go into effect Monday, but the testing requirement will not. I was a change from previous OSHA position as early as late as yesterday, but they modify the position somewhat where the justices come out on this. Arguments are like this had a small slice of the overall aspect of the case so we'll see.
I'm see what you know. I think very soon.
Mike Pompeo is joining us in just a few moments. His comments were very familiar with the SSA back more only one.
A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pieces were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later, planned parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership is empowering the right question for copy mission life today online/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stay with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ is going on the front lines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms that remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing, member today ACLJ go to wrap it up here joined by senior counsel for global affairs at the ACLJ.
Of course for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who we did this yesterday.
Tomorrow's arguments this is just absolute dart about overtime, about tomorrow's arguments before the sprinkler in the United States are critical. I pray they do what is right and reject Pres. Biden's unconstitutional mandates. The secretary Pompeo thanks for joining us.
We would like some others.
J and I wanted him calling out you'll live baseball game here were talking about this bobber vibrated still the argument itself is still alive with taking the position that statutorily and constitutionally that this was an unconstitutional moving statutory party wasn't there to do this without getting into the weeds.
What was often the case here was an administrative state initially and then a longer term say the court gives the disposition of this your sense of a bid. The significance of this because the problem here is not so much a big advocate of of the vaccines. I've been very clear on that. And you know I'm I'm I'm proud to say that people of different positions. A free country. But here's the thing that I don't understand. I don't why the court initially given administrative state and the solicitor Gen. today, change the effective date of this at least as to the testing until February which was interesting. I think a more vehement maybe administrative say what your sense of the situation.
Yeah, I think J you scope it up pretty well first principle. This is a OSHA rule.
Remember when we were trying to do things through administrative process that will ultimately fail to execute so they purely legal matter. I think this is ultimately going to be found by the Circuit Court not to be permissible or appropriate to strike with Dennis for the immediacy of that you could hear the response of the government under the questions that Justice Alito asked this morning the date they know that they Salamis for a long time in our declaring that the urgency in a way that doesn't cut court the capacity to do this and the reason why I think court by that that's the case on the on the bigger issue on the practical import of that I think you got that exactly right on the these mandates don't function to serve the purpose for which the Biden administration to just their legal defense forward. We know that this coded thing vehicle while we we know that most people are choosing to become vaccinated with keeping them from going to hospital they put of the rock.
I think that the government issuing a mandate for such a thing and doing it at on pain of loss of the capacity to take care of your family and feed your children pay relief in your rent.
I think that is an outrageous overreach by the FA policy matter, and I think I find it both unlawful and illegal at the legal and constitutional matters.
Well you I would've gotten nothing sites I sow I'm going to criticize the lawyers that argument because I've done this a many, many times now and for four decades and so you know you're up there bobbing and weaving its you know it's easy to criticize when you're not going to come up with this things I I said was I would've initially said press about what Pres. Biden said was correct that there is not a federal solution. Here the states at this office because the state can deal with and a local on the state basis where there's issues, making the delegate got to the counties. That's number one number two.
The testing mandate problem is not that the test is so invasive it said you can get a test so it's a foot of the doctrine of legal impossibility. You can even comply with this. So I find the whole approach here to be constitutionally awkward to say the least that may be a new phrase, but in Castries, we suspect, but try to apply this to me. We were all told me Mike last night with our HR people try to figure out what we do for Monday. I mean this is how complicated the situation is and you got employees that can't be vaccinated because of immuno compensation or how you can make a test of the time. These are real situations that people have an and like I said I'm pro bats, but the government doing this is just difficult to conceive of how this can roll out smoothly and by the government said oh no no no when testing until February. Now, actually with the mandates that though that's right but P8 this is not an academic exercise and real exercise where we realize you can be affected.
Not only did individuals live family five the lives of businesses run given a pilot to fly airplanes and for companies like yours businesses like yours. Organizations like ACLJ to continue to perform their important mission.
This is put together hastily in an attempt to suggest another they were doing something because I think of the political matter.
Pres. Biden claimed he was going to destroy their virus. We can see by the hundreds of thousands of cases every day. He haven't done that. I got a politically difficult bridge and tell you to put a set OSHA off the department labor optical to get the roof to do something and I think now the poor lawyers are having to defend it to do something.
It is used constitutionally awkward. I think pretty diplomatic guide. Maybe you can run the department. One day I got usually a disaster from the perspective that our government model. This would give OSHA the right to do just about anything in the name of safety for the workplace.
I would try to be.
I was try to be kind to lawyers arguing because I've been in that position where you left another, left the court cases like just the statements was a really nice guy but he would give you any time he would say the word supposing as part of his hypothetical you know you're about to get a left signature get your arms up because you got a pocket. Having said that, all right, so we look at this I think about what happened when when you were in office and operation warp speed and all of these things moved in a systematic way and then looking at it now to get into the politics of this but it seems like as I said the justice change the policy while they were up there today and that the EC and the NIH and others are changing their protocol their guidance today.
Every day, sometimes multiple times a day.
It certainly goes like it's to the whims of public perception of what's taking place.
What we need is good science, rational debate. Good logic in the presentation of the federal government messages and then let the government about these County commissioners, but these school boards make good decisions for their own systems on states that are greeted I will get to a solution that is workable to deal with this ongoing challenge from COBIT much more quickly and I was going to say Mike I totally agree on that part. I think that the part of it when he saw today on fallenness the one falling is alive is that the lack of clarity of the mandate itself is created. Part of the really big part of the problem here quickly. Let me let me close with this Micah milling about a minute left here with us reports to do. Maybe it was Tuesday.
Maybe they don't. But the end result of this does show that Supreme Court justices make a big difference.
They do, we can never forget that a field is done a wonderful job of highlighting the different division of the different dresses they can talk about why this matters what we we all know that the election election states of matter because most of the folks that choose who are just bizarre. And if they kiss people who are political and are prepared to defend the Constitution. Then there's real rest to the Republic Sec. my compound in senior counsel today. See okay thanks for being with, appreciate your insight as I recall you live as we see it and appreciate that you that's why we gotta wrap up the show. Thank you all for calling a big part of the broadcast today.
Thanks Dobbs, their crew was able to safely get in to produce this as we host this show remotely think that would really appreciate all their hard work. As we keep this live analysis going now something big changes of the big happens will do our best to keep you updated. The best way to do that is to make sure you are actively involved in the ACLJ's a good ACLJ.org like this page watching on Facebook scribe on YouTube.
Try to be as current as we can run it's the river. Everywhere you get media. We are there.
You are staying up-to-date with what is going on in the world by following everything that ACLJ.org.
They show that the majority is back on Monday you this Novell that ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side.
If you're already a member.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Well, this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ