• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
757
Points
1,060

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
914
Points
940
Another day, another failed vaccine mandate. The mandates only work if you let them, truckers starting quitting well before the deadline and forced the government to back off. Clearly it's not about safety, its about cohersion. Watch for the quarantine time to disappear once the supply chain grinds to a crawl.

Unvaccinated Canadian truckers will have to quarantine under new mandate, feds say
well it's not like parliment is sitting and you have the government explaining everything, they never did that pre-covid
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
398
Points
980
I'm surprised there is no discussion on the SCOTUS decision regarding the OHSA mandate.

"Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," the Court ruled. "COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases."

This ruling is kind of a big deal, but maybe that rationale doesn't line up with any pre-conceived notions?
 

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
499
Points
810
I'm surprised there is no discussion on the SCOTUS decision regarding the OHSA mandate.

"Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," the Court ruled. "COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases."

This ruling is kind of a big deal, but maybe that rationale doesn't line up with any pre-conceived notions?
A ruling from a different country with a different Constitution. From what I have read, they did allow the mandate to continue for the healthcare sector.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
89
Points
380
Another flip-flop: no exemption for Canadian truckers after all.


"On Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency said the federal government was backing down from that commitment and would allow Canadian truckers to enter the country without having to quarantine even if they were unvaccinated or had received only one dose.

Today, the federal government walked back that statement, saying that Wednesday's statement was "provided in error" and that the regulations outlined in November will stand."
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
398
Points
980
A ruling from a different country with a different Constitution. From what I have read, they did allow the mandate to continue for the healthcare sector.
You say that like Canadian courts completely disregard American decisions on similar subjects.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,640
Points
990
You say that like Canadian courts completely disregard American decisions on similar subjects.
However, thus far, Canadian courts have largely ruled otherwise. The interlocutors injunction decision in Neri does not bode well for the challenge of the CAF mandate, and the decision in Wojdan similarly for the rest of the federally regulated sphere. In both cases courts have said “no, use your grievance system”, thiugh in Neri the judge went farther in her analysis and really ripped the underlying claim to shreds.

SCOTUS is significantly more partisan than the SCC, and at 6-3 it looks like this broke on partisan lines. There’s no reason to believe that with our very different jurisprudence and labour relations law, that the courts are likely to overturn this here.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
432
Points
1,230
SCOTUS is significantly more partisan than the SCC, and at 6-3 it looks like this broke on partisan lines. There’s no reason to believe that with our very different jurisprudence and labour relations law, that the courts are likely to overturn this here.

From what I have read, their system of Supreme Court appointments are different from ours.

 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
2,640
Points
990
From what I have read, their system of Supreme Court appointments are different from ours.

Very much so. To appoint a Supreme Court Justice, the president nominates and the senate confirms. Anticipated Supreme Court vacancies are literally an election issue. The Senate is notorious for naked partisanship in trying to either rush through or block SCOTUS nominations as elections approach, and ‘stacking’ the court while they control the presidency and the Senate is an openly admitted goal of both side.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
1,060

lenaitch

Sr. Member
Reaction score
499
Points
810
You say that like Canadian courts completely disregard American decisions on similar subjects.
I do not, but the issue of federal and sub-national (state/provincial) authority are significantly different. These rulings, as I read them, focus on whether to federal action was constitutional legal, not on whether it was justified. That may be yet to come. Our federal government has a broader scope of authority. A federation of provinces under a national umbrella vs. a union of independent states.
 
Top