Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has set his sights on eliminating the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced which cases it would consider next and which it wouldn’t. Among those the court rejected was a case that challenged the authority of OSHA, which sets and enforces standards for health and safety in the workplace.

And Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the already mostly conservative court, wasn’t happy.

In a dissent, he explained why he believed the high court should’ve taken the case: OSHA’s power, he argues, is unconstitutional.

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just trying to bring it back to the good old days when children yearned for the mines, and men got blended up in industrial machinery.

  • Krauerking@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh great. An old man who simply is getting rid of protections for average people because all he hears is how it hurts the profit margins of his good friends the uber wealthy.

    We really are just heading to a split society of no class mobility and no real consideration of the poor from the rich.

    And yet they wonder why the country is collapsing and people don’t really want to have kids anymore.

  • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Clarence Thomas is unconstitutional. By his own originalist logic, he is only 3/5 of a human and should not be married to a white woman.

    Fuck Clarence Thomas.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is Clarence Thomas okay? Does he just go around pointing at random things and screaming “Unconstitutional!” ? Is “unconstitutional” in the room with us right now?

    Artist’s Rendition:

  • 242@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Thomas just wants everyone to be as miserable as him. Fuck the workers! Make them feel the pain! The rest of the conservative zombies aren’t as addled as him though and realize they have to keep the facade of beneficial capitalism going until climate disasters kill us all. Then they’ll cancel OSHA.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    TLDR: It may be unconstitutional in his opinion because of the Non Delegation Doctrine stemming from:

    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…

    Basically Congress can’t just go and let the Executive branch do their job. The Executive can’t make new laws only enforce the existing ones.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This is my rub with Clarence in general. On paper I agree with a very hardline reading of the constitution cause what else is it there for. We’re far too allergic to making constitutional amendments and laws and have built up a house of cards that gets toppled every time the administration changes.

      However, practically speaking, there’s too many actual lives depending on supreme court decisions and delegated regulations to wait for congress to do something about it (if they aren’t stalled outright by lobbying and party opposition). If the overturning of such decisions is meant to light a fire under the ass of the legislative branch, it operates much too slowly to protect the vulnerable people who suffer in the interim. Delegation is the only reason we have a (relatively) safe and clean place to live.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Like I said elsewhere, just make congress review use of delegated authority regularly and rubberstamp it if the agency is acting reasonably, otherwise they just give new directives wherever they deem fit.

        They might even let agencies notify select members of congress when changing any notable rules so they can decide if they want to call a legislative session or just OK it.

        That respects the division of powers in the constitution while still letting regulatory agencies do their jobs

        https://slrpnk.net/comment/9618565

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The problem is that congress doesn’t do anything quickly (unless it’s giving themselves a raise). That’s the whole reason delegation was needed, because they’re so slow to actually pass specific laws. Previously, the rule was that any ambiguity in the law could be interpreted as needed by the relevant agency. That way the law can be “companies need to ensure a certain level of safety for workers” and OSHA with their panel of experts can figure out the details of what precautions are needed where. Even if a rubber stamp is all that would be needed, they have a huge backlog of regulations to get through and a lot of companies that will fight tooth and nail to save a bit of money on safety equipment. If the SCOTUS takes such a case and rules against OSHA’s authority, you best believe there will be blood on their hands.

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’s why I said only notable changes should need preemptive review (if any), everything else that’s standard procedure would just be documented and OK’d after

            I agree it would have very bad consequences if the agency would get blocked entirely from acting

      • Tire@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        There needs to be a statute of limitations on how long the Supreme Court can reverse things. They can’t change things 40 years after the fact when entire agencies have been built and society has restructured around the previous ruling.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The problem with that is Korematsu v. US was decided in 1944 and is technically still the law as no subsequent cases have come up to overturn it.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      We do have a problem with executive power creep so like there’s a world where I’m on board for non-delegation but there just is a reality that some questions are too small, detailed, and nuanced to expect a new bill out of Congress each time.

      So like setting new tariffs, should be a congressional action and it was improperly delegated. Determining whether a new ladder is safe for workers, can be delegated.

    • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The two party system has resulted in grid lock on anything pf actual value like codifying in law the things the SCOTUS has been rolling back. We’ve rested on our laurels for it to all be undone.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s a good thing NOBODY WHO WOULD POSSIBLY BENEFIT FROM THIS has given Thomas Gifts Bribes or ANYTHING to sway his Judgement!

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ah, but the police force got much better and stronger since back in those days so good look going back to protesting to get those rights back,

      Plus splitting people over insane conspiracies keeps them weak and easier to control so Americans are less likely to stick together and fight the real enemy: the billionaires.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        They will lay off middle class American workers, then bring in H1B visa workers to replace them at half the cost, then blame immigrants for taking their jobs. Then blame border security and terrorism.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I suppose the American worker could wake up to the reality that the protection against utter abuse for no pay didn’t just appear out of thin air

      Are you kidding? The Budweiser and Marlboro crowd will be told it is the fault of some brown people so they will double down on their hate and donations to elect a dictator who will “solve” their problems

    • el_bhm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That is the plan. Clarence Thomas is owned by billioners parasites that want a feudalism system in their corporations.