US SUPREME COURT LIVE - 1/7/22 HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS

THE SUPREME COURT IS HEARING ORAL ARGUMENT FOR OSHA AND CMS COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES TODAY: 

OSHA mandate oral argument – 10:00am 

Starting at 10 a.m.:  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear requests to block enforcement of the OSHA mandate for shots or weekly testing of workers and mask-wearing in all private companies that have 100 or more employees.  The mandate would impact approximately 84.2 million people. Enforcement of OSHA's shot mandate will begin January 10 and the testing policy will begin February 9. 

 

CMS health care mandate – 11:30am 

Hearing starting at about 11:30 a.m.: The Court will hear appeals to block the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS rule) shot mandate for health care workers at facilities that receive medicare or medicaid funds. The order applies to about 180 million people and has been temporarily blocked in 25 states by lower federal courts.

SCOTUS Could Permanently Stop Biden’s Shot Mandates

Jan 3, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court will hold a special session on Friday, January 7, in order to hear oral arguments for two separate challenges to the Biden administration’s shot mandates for businesses with over 100 employees and for health care workers at facilities receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding. 

The cases cover two federal policies: the “Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard,” a shot-or-test mandate for 84 million private employees, and the “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule,” a shot mandate for 17 million health care workers at facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding. The larger question in these cases is whether the federal government has the authority to force employers to require injections. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued its shot mandate for large employers on November 5 and requires any workers who remain unvaccinated to “undergo [weekly] COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work.” If allowed to take effect, it will force every large business to require proof of a negative COVID-19 test on at least a weekly basis or proof of vaccination from each worker. Companies that don’t comply would face fines up to $13,600 per violation, with a potential additional $13,600 fine for each day that an employer does not stop the violation. OSHA also could fine businesses up to $136,000 for willful or serious violations. 

However, following a ruling out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 17, OSHA announced it would not issue citations for non-compliance with any requirements before January 10, and will not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements before February 9, as long as an employer is exercising reasonable and good faith efforts to come into compliance with the mandate. 

Since the 1970s, OHSA has issued nine Emergency Temporary Standards, six of which were challenged, and of those six, five were struck down by the Courts of Appeal. 

Great news! Yesterday, U.S. Judge Reed O'Connor, the U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, granted a temporary injunction against Biden’s federal vaccine mandate for 35 active-duty Navy SEALs and three reservists who sued the administration after seeking a religious exemption. The lawsuit was filed in Texas last November. 

"The Navy service members in this case seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect. The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment," O'Connor wrote in his ruling. "There is no military exclusion from our Constitution." 

Moving forward in Navy SEAL 1 v. Biden, Liberty Counsel is: 

* Filing an amended complaint with the court this week, adding more military plaintiffs, federal contractors, and other defendants within the Biden administration. The complaint will also include additional counts to strike down the vaccine mandate on federal civilian contractors.  

* Awaiting the DOD (Department of Defense) to submit its first report to court THIS FRIDAY, January 7, 2022, detailing how the department has been handling religious exemptions. Many religious exemption requests have now been denied at the appeal level. According to the court order, these reports are now due every two weeks. 

* Filing for an injunction next week against the Biden vaccine mandate on the military, federal contractors and federal civilian contractors and federal employees. 

We will continue to fight in the courts until every unconstitutional mandate is outlawed.

 https://youtu.be/qo3m2cTvNYo

Supreme Court To Hear Vaccine Mandate Case Jan. 7th

By 

Jay Sekulow

|

December 27

3 min read

EXECUTIVE POWER

A

A

We are fighting at the Supreme Court against President Biden’s federal vaccine mandate. The Supreme Court has announced it will hear oral arguments on January 7th. The mandate that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) put forward to go into effect on January 4, 2022, requires employers of 100 or more employees to implement a mandatory vaccination policy for all employees with limited exceptions.

We filed an Emergency Application for Stay of Agency Action Pending Judicial Review and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment on behalf of The Heritage Foundation over this federal power grab. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but the law will still go into place on January 4th. The government has untilDecember 30th to respond to our applications. And we will be filing a brief that is due on January 3rd.

ACLJ Senior Litigation Counsel Abby Southerland explained what we’ve asked for: 

We have asked the Court first for an application for stay, to go ahead and issue an emergency stay that is in line with the first action taken in this case by the Fifth Circuit which was to issue the stay. Which was then undone by the Sixth Circuit. Then, a Petition for Certiorari would ask the Court to review the merits of the case.

OSHA issued a statement to inform employers what to do in the interim:

To account for any uncertainty created by the stay, OSHA is exercising enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the ETS. To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance, OSHA will not issue citations for non-compliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard. OSHA will work closely with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance.

https://youtu.be/qo3m2cTvNYo

NYS ASSEMBLY MEMBER NICK PERRY STATEMENT TO REMOVE A416 DUE TO BLOW BACK AND LACK OF SUPPORT

UPDATE 1/4/22

Profesor Henry Grullon 🇺🇸🇩🇴

(347)485-8914

Email: Professorhenry466@gmail.com

Twitter: 

@henrygrullon4

Attorney Matt Slater

https://www.facebook.com/LibertyCounsel

NEW YORK.- Several laws will take effect in this state of New York during 2022. Tens of thousands of Dominican employees, like other ethnic groups, who work in different areas in the 62 cities will benefit. 

* SET FOR JULY,2022

   The New York City Council passed legislation Thursday to allow nearly 800,000 legal noncitizens who have lived in the city for over 30 days to vote in local elections. It would apply to green-card and work-permit holders as well as those within Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  

Leyes en 2022 que entrarán en vigencia NYC; dominicanos se beneficiarán – El Faro Latino

Leyes en 2022 que entrarán en vigencia NYC; dominicanos se beneficiarán

NEW BILL A416 ( INTRO) INDEFINITE DETENTION OF UNVACCINATED AT GOVERNOR’S WHIM

https://youtu.be/SGUA17Qslqc

Judge Blocks Biden’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors in 10 States US Dec 21, 2021

 

Supreme Court asks Biden to respond to challenges to business jab mandate by Dec. 30

Judge Blocks Biden’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors in 10 States

US Dec 21, 2021 Mimi Nguyen Ly

https://www.ntd.com/judge-blocks-bidens-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-for-federal-contractors-in-10-states_717061.html

federal judge in Missouri has issued a temporary hold on the Biden administration’s COVID-19vaccine mandate for federal contractors in 10 U.S. states while litigation plays out.

 federal judge in Missouri has issued a temporary hold on the Biden administration’s COVID-19vaccine mandate for federal contractors in 10 U.S. states while litigation plays out.

“We just beat the Biden Administration in court again,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced on Twitter late Monday. “This afternoon, we obtained a preliminary injunction against the vaccine mandate on federal contractors, halting enforcement of that mandate in Missouri and the other states in our coalition.”

The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge David Noce, applies to Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Schmitt and Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, both Republicans, on Oct. 29 co-led the 10 states in suing the Biden administration over the mandate, calling it “unconstitutional, unlawful, and unwise.”

“It will not harm the federal government to maintain the status quo while the courts decide the issues of the President’s authority and the implications for federalism. 

The Court concludes that, on balance, consideration of the harms and the public interest weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction,” reads the Monday preliminary injunction order from U.S. Magistrate Judge David Noce.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mandate Currently Blocked Nationwide

A nationwide preliminary injunction is already in place blocking the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors, after a federal court in Georgia on Dec. 7 granted the injunction in a separate seven-state lawsuit led by Georgia.

The court had decided to block the mandate for the whole of the United States because a national trade organization—Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC)—was granted permission by the court to intervene in the case as a plaintiff. 

The states of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia were the other plaintiffs.

“[G]iven the breadth of ABC’s [nationwide] membership … limiting the relief to only those before the Court would prove unwieldy and would only cause more confusion. 

Thus, on the unique facts before it, the Court finds it necessary, in order to truly afford injunctive relief to the parties before it, to issue an injunction with nationwide applicability,” U.S. District Judge Stan Baker wrote in the order (pdf).

At least 51 senators rejected the Build Back Better bill, including Joe Manchin. The West Virginia senator reportedly forced fellow Democrats to scrap an offshore drilling ban from the massive Build Back Better Act spending plan

 

Manchin killing BBB likely saved US from economic 'disaster,' experts say

An offshore drilling ban in the United States would strengthen oil-rich countries like Russia, experts say

• Facebook
  Twitter
  Comments
  Print
  Email

By Andrew Mark Miller FOXBusiness

At least 51 senators rejected the Build Back Better bill, including Joe Manchin. 

The West Virginia senator reportedly forced fellow Democrats to scrap an offshore drilling ban from the massive Build Back Better Act spending plan, a provision that experts say would have had disastrous consequences for the country. 

"An offshore drilling ban would be a disaster for our country, rolling out the red carpet for Russia and Venezuela to replace 20% of America’s daily production and costing Texas alone over 1 million jobs along our Gulf Coast," Jason Modglin, President of Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, told Fox News Digital.

Modglin spoke in response to reports that Manchin convinced Democrats to abandon a plan to stop all drilling on rigs in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Ryan Sitton, founder and CEO of Texas-based reliability firm Pinnacle, echoed Modglin’s conclusion and said eliminating offshore drilling would embolden Russia, a country President Biden’s Pentagon deemed as an "existential threat" to the United States earlier this year.

"It simply makes Russia absolutely more powerful," Sitton said.

Sitton explained that the U.S. would end up buying oil lost from the offshore drilling ban somewhere else since oil demand will only continue to rise. 

"When you decrease U.S. oil production, and you put more demand on the world for Russian oil production, it just makes Russia more powerful," Sitton added. 

Gas prices hit a seven-year high in October, and Sitton said a ban on offshore drilling would only exacerbate that problem and "absolutely jack up prices again."

Manchin’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Manchin, a moderate Democrat, is one of the last holdouts delaying passage of President Biden’s massive social and environmental Build Back Better Act. 

The West Virginia senator has expressed concerns over multiple aspects of the roughly $2 trillion package, including the continuation of the expanded Child Tax Credit program.

Faced with unified Republican opposition, Biden is trying to pass the package with Democrats alone, which the House has already done. But the path in the evenly split 50-50 Senate is more difficult, with no room for dissent. 

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE   

In a statement Thursday, Biden appeared to concede that his Build Back Better Act would not clear the Senate by Christmas as he had hoped

"My team and I are having ongoing discussions with Senator Manchin; that work will continue next week," Biden said. "It takes time to finalize these agreements, prepare the legislative changes and finish all the parliamentary and procedural steps needed to enable a Senate vote. 

We will advance this work together over the days and weeks ahead. Leader Schumer and I are determined to see the bill successfully on the floor as early as possible."

The Associated Press contributed to this report

Professor Henry Grullon 2022 schedule

 

https://youtu.be/cgU79qaUKho

Buenos días futuros estudiantes. El profesor Grullon me pidió que publicara el volante actualizado. 

Por favor envíeme un correo electrónico y copie al Profesor Grullon si tiene alguna pregunta y / o inquietud.

Profesor Henry Grullon 🇺🇸🇩🇴

ESL ( English as a Second Language)

Bronx Community College 

Workforce department 

Continuing Eduction Department 

(347)485-8914

Profesor Grullon 

Email: Professorhenry466@gmail.com

__________________________________

Good morning future students. Professor Grullon asked me to post the updated flyer.

Please email me and copy Professor Grullon if he has any questions and / or concerns.

Professor Henry Grullon 🇺🇸🇩🇴

ESL (English as a Second Language)

Bronx Community College

Labor department

Continuing Education Department

(347)485-8914

Professor Grullon

Email: Professorhenry466@gmail.com

Note: 

Federal appeals court allows Biden vaccine mandate for large companies to resume The decision is the latest skirmish in a battle that will likely be decided by the Supreme Court!!!!

 

https://youtu.be/uNGYDhj4nmc

STRIKE 2 - AL FAVOR DEL MANDATO DE VACUNA DEL PRESIDENTE BIDEN  - ¡¡¡APELACIONES PRESENTADAS EN LA CORTE SUPREMA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS !!!

Federal appeals court allows Biden vaccine mandate for large companies to resume

The decision is the latest skirmish in a battle that will likely be decided by the Supreme Court!!!!

A federal appeals court Friday reinstated the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for large companies, dissolving a stay by a separate court that had suspended the mandate. 

LLAMAMIENTOS FEDERALES

TRIBUNAL REINSTALA

MANDATO DE BIDEN VACUNA

FIJAR PARA 1/4/22

The decision is the latest skirmish in a continuing battle that will likely soon be decided by the Supreme Court. 

A coalition of 27 business groups quickly appealed to the nation's highest court Friday to block the lower court's mandate, according to Politico. They claimed the mandate would bring "harm" to thousands of businesses.

The Biden vaccine mandate forces companies with 100 employees or more to require that their workers be vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The requirement takes effect Jan. 4.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Biden administration could enforce the policy using the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

"Recognizing that the ‘old normal’ is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there," wrote Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, a Barack Obama appointee, for the majority. "In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration."

US SUPREME COURT REJECTS EMERGENCY INJUNCTION 

EMERGENCY DOCKET

Court rejects religious challenge to New York’s vaccine mandate for health care workers

By Amy Howe
on Dec 13, 2021 at 8:59 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday turneddown two requests to block New York’s vaccine mandate for health care workers. Two groups of health care workers are challenging the mandate, arguing that it violates their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. But over the public dissents of three conservative justices, the court denied the workers’ requests to put the mandate on hold while litigation continues.

The mandate, unanimously approved by a board of the New York State Department of Health, applies to those working in hospitals, nursing homes, diagnostic and treatment centers, adult care facilities, certified home health agencies, hospices, long-term home health care programs, AIDS home care programs, licensed home care service agencies, and limited licensed home care service agencies. 

The dispute centers on a regulation issued by New York’s state health department that requires all health care workers in the state to be vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical exemption. The regulation does not contain a religious exemption.

The challengers went to federal court, contending that they cannot comply without violating their religious beliefs because the three vaccines available in the United States all were tested or developed with cells descended from decades-old aborted fetal cells. One set of challengers told the justices that the vaccine mandate “imposes an unconscionable choice on New York healthcare workers: abandon their faith or lose their careers and their best means to provide for their families.”

The use of historical fetal cell lines is routinein the development and testing of drugs and vaccines, and the COVID vaccines themselves do not contain aborted fetal cells. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other anti-abortion religious leaders have said it is ethically acceptableto receive the vaccines.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit declined to freeze New York’s mandate earlier this fall, the health care workers came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene on an emergency basis. The workers told the court that, like restrictions imposed on worship services to combat the spread of COVID-19, “vaccine mandates raise difficult questions about balancing indubitably strong public health interests on one side and core constitutional rights on the other.” However, the workers continued, “it is not difficult to see that New York’s uniquely punitive treatment of religious objectors, which is an extreme outlier nationally, violates the Free Exercise Clause.” They complained that New York had originally included a religious exemption but then eliminated it while maintaining a medical exemption.

New York urged the justices to leave the mandate in place. It compared the COVID-19 vaccine requirement, with only a medical exemption, to “preexisting vaccination requirements for measles and rubella that have been in effect for decades.” And the state pushed back against the premise of the health care workers’ objection to the vaccine, telling the justices that Pope Francis and the Conference of Catholic Bishops have encouraged people to get vaccinated. Fetal cells used during the research and development phase of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the state said, “are currently grown in a laboratory and are thousands of generations removed from cells collected from a fetus in 1973.” Moreover, the state stressed, “the use of fetal cell lines for testing is common, including for the rubella vaccine, which New York’s healthcare workers are already required to take.”

Although both cases have been fully briefed since Nov. 17, the justices did not act on them until Monday, disposing of both with one-sentence orders. In October, the court rejected a similar challenge to Maine’s vaccine mandate for health care workers who sought religious exemptions. In that case, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the court’s emergency docket is not the proper place to resolve the merits of the challenge. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court’s decision not to intervene in the Maine case, with Gorsuch writing a dissenting opinion.   

Gorsuch again issued a written opinion dissenting from Monday’s order denying the New York challengers’ emergency request in Dr. A v. Hochul. He would have put the mandate on hold until the Supreme Court can fully take up the challengers’ case. Alito joined Gorsuch’s dissent; Thomas indicated that he would have granted the challengers’ application but did not join the Gorsuch dissent.

Gorsuch emphasized that the challengers “are not ‘anti-vaxxers’ who object to all vaccines” and that “no one questions the sincerity of their religious beliefs.” The challengers’ religious opposition to the vaccines, he continued, did not originally pose any problems, because former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo had indicated that any vaccine mandate would contain both medical and religious exceptions. “The trouble here began only” when Cuomo was replaced by the current governor, Kathy Hochul – who, Gorsuch noted, “expressed her view that religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines are theologically flawed.”

Because there is no real dispute that the challengers are likely to be permanently harmed if the mandate remains in effect, Gorsuch reasoned, the real question before the court in deciding whether to grant emergency relief was whether the challengers are likely to succeed on their argument that the vaccine mandate violates their right to freely exercise their religion. “The answer to that question,” Gorsuch wrote, “is clear,” and the mandate is unconstitutional. In light of Hochul’s comments about religion and vaccination, as well as changes to the state’s unemployment system “designed to single out for special disfavor healthcare workers who failed to comply with the revised mandate,” Gorsuch concluded, the overall record of New York’s mandate “practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs.”

But even if the state had not made its suspicion so clear, Gorsuch added, the regulation would still be unconstitutional because “New York has presenting nothing to suggest that accommodating the religious objectors before us would make a meaningful difference to the protection of public health.” Other states have not required religious objectors to receive the vaccine, Gorsuch observed, and New York itself already enjoys a high vaccination rate in its health care facilities.

Gorsuch closed by accusing the court of “stand[ing] silent as majorities invade the constitutional rights of the unpopular and unorthodox.” Gorsuch expressed hope that eventually the justices will reach a different result that is, in his view, more respectful of the free exercise of religion.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

NEW YORK.- Several laws will take effect in this state of New York during 2022.

 

NEW YORK.- Several laws will take effect in this state of New York during 2022. Tens of thousands of Dominican employees, like other ethnic groups, who work in different areas in the 62 cities will benefit. 

* SET FOR JULY,2022

   The New York City Council passed legislation Thursday to allow nearly 800,000 legal noncitizens who have lived in the city for over 30 days to vote in local elections. It would apply to green-card and work-permit holders as well as those within Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  

Leyes en 2022 que entrarán en vigencia NYC; dominicanos se beneficiarán – El Faro Latino

Leyes en 2022 que entrarán en vigencia NYC; dominicanos se beneficiarán

Ramón Mercedes

(1) First: Paid family leave where qualified employees who work at least 5 days a week can take a maximum of 60 days of leave per year. Paid Family Leave benefits provide up to 12 weeks of partially paid time off along with job protection. It will go into effect on January 1. 

(2) Second: Wage theft continues to be a scourge in NY, especially in the construction industry. However, under pressure from immigrant advocates, SB 2766C / AB 3350A makes general contractors liable for wages, benefits, or bonuses owed to construction workers by subcontractors. Contractors and subcontractors must provide payroll records for all employees who provide labor on a project. Failure to provide records on time will be grounds for a contractor to withhold payments owed to a subcontractor at any level. It will go into effect on January 4.

(3) Third: Access to sanitary facilities for food delivery workers. The law would require that food delivery requests include a provision in contracts with restaurants requiring them to make their restrooms available for the use of delivery workers. It will go into effect on January 24. 

(4) Fourth: The law on tips. For every order placed on a food delivery platform, the law prohibits a food delivery app from requesting a tip from a customer unless it reveals the amount that is delivered to the delivery worker; and how tips are provided, whether immediate or not, and in cash or not. This information must be provided before or at the same time the tip is requested. Applications will need to notify workers if a tip was added, the amount, or if a change was made. Each day the worker would be required to report the total compensation and bonuses earned on the previous day. It will go into effect on January 24.

(5) Fifth: The law will prohibit third party food delivery services from charging food service establishments more than 15% per order for delivery and more than 5% per order for all other fees, except for the transaction fees. Charging more than 3% per order for transaction fees would be prohibited, except that it would allow a higher charge if the third-party food delivery service can provide proof that such a higher charge was imposed on the service of a credit card company or an Internet-based payment system to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection and the corresponding food service establishment, if requested. The Department shall submit a report to the Mayor and the President of the City Council every two years, beginning no later than September 30, 2023, recommending the maintenance or adjustment of the rate limit by considering factors such as the effect of the limit on services. third-party food delivery and food service establishments. If the limit affects the wages and working conditions of delivery workers; products provided by third party food delivery services for inclusion, processing and marketing. It goes into effect on January 24. 

(6) Sixth: Licensing of food delivery services to third parties. Third party food delivery services would be required to obtain a license to do business in the city. The city could refuse to renew, suspend or revoke a license if a third-party food delivery service commits two or more violations of the law. They would also be subject to civil penalties. The Department of Consumer and Worker Protection would be required to carry out outreach activities on the new provisions. It will go into effect on January 24.

(7) Seventh: Protection of whistleblowers SB 4394 / AB2546. Protection is extended to workers and former workers who report unsafe working conditions, wage theft or any other irregularity committed by contractors. Retaliation includes actions such as threats of termination or to contact immigration authorities. It will go into effect on January 26,2022.

https://therealdeal.com/2021/12/16/landlords-defeat-criminal-history-bill-for-now/