754

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 43 points 1 day 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.

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago

They won't stop. By 2025 they will reinstate the crime of heresy. Mark my words.

[-] MilitantAtheist@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I believe you

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 297 points 2 days 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.

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago

He is a straight up real life Clayton Bigsby

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 47 points 2 days ago

is unconstitutional

At this point I'm seeing a pattern. Any time someone good has to be removed so that pure evil shit can take it's place, the argument almost always includes at least "is unconstitutional"

Guys, GUYS! Your constitution.... Sucks. Same as your founding fathers. The US constitution is a document that was cool a few hundred years ago, but it is heavily outdated and at this point an actual new one really wouldn't be a bad idea. Yeah yeah, the original document doesn't suck, at least not in historic context, and definitely should be kept in a museum but stop effin quoting the damn thing as it it were Gods personao commandments. Get a new constitution for the 21st century.

Your founding fathers were okay, of course, but stop treating them as if they were infallible gods. They weren't. Im sure that for their time they were super smart and their ideas revolutionary, but that was centuries ago and a lot of their ideas no longer fly.

The right to bear arms (insert joke about bear arms) was written when an arm was a musket, that would take (a) minute(s) to load a single bullet that then could barely hit a target and had the penetration power of my penis. Now we have AR15's for children who can murder double digits other children through multiple walls within double digit seconds and basically half the country thinks this is perfectly fine and quotes that two hundred year old line as the infallible reason why.

It's okay. Your constitution WAS great hundreds of years ago and yeah, your founding fathers WERE awesome. They both live two hundred years away from the situation we face today. The world changed. The US changed. Science changed. Everything changed and got updated. Your constitution got a few updates but at this point could use a rewrite. You know, something healthy to start over fresh.

[-] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago

Rewriting the constitution is part of their plan but I very much doubt the changes they want to make are good for anyone but them.

[-] TurtleJoe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I mean, the big philosophical divide between liberal and conservative judges is usually whether or not the constitution is a "living" document. That is, whether it can be interpreted through a modern lens, or if laws must be strictly limited by what is exactly written in the document.

I would argue that it's easily the former, since, one, they explicitly allow amendments to the Constitution, and, two, there is a session of the Bill of Rights where they basically say, "we can't possibly list all the rights that people are entitled to. This list is by no means comprehensive, and just because something isn't in here, it doesn't mean we've left it out on purpose."

I agree that the constitution is very flawed, and that we would probably be better off without it, but one thing they were very clear on: no kings. The Trump immunity ruling was not only legal nonsense, it was clearly not an originalist interpretation (what the conservatives claim to be.)

When you take into account all of the rulings that this current court has made, it's quite clear that they just start with the conclusion that they want, and reason backwards to get the justification. Once you're at that point, I'm not sure that it really matters what your legal system is based on; they're just doing make-em-ups anyway.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 49 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Working in the chemical industry, this statement is horrifying.

Take a look for yourself:

https://m.youtube.com/user/USCSB

A fucking judge who sits on his ass all day, "interpreting" the constitution like he's some fucking oracle, wouldn't even begin to understand.

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago

I did Asbestos removal for awhile years ago. I cannot imagine not having OSHA. The amount of crap companies get away with with OSHA around is already absurd.

[-] t_chalco@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

I had no idea of this entity, but I work with enough similarly, highly nuanced public professionals that I recognize that the rapid and blind "immediately destroy all gubberment" approach will have widespread oh-holy-fuck consequenes if not just for the extensive brain vacuum potentially left in the wake of this type of growing mentality. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and perspective.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 57 points 2 days 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.

[-] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

Speaking of good old days, I think we should bring slavery back, but only for Clarence.

1/2 /j

[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

I volunteer Thomas to run a lathe and see what happens when safety regulations aren't enforced.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 76 points 2 days ago

I assume soon we will be getting rid of the weekend and the 40-hour work week.

We're already letting children work jobs that maim and kill them again.

[-] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Of course! That's what family values are all about! Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 58 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Just remember guys, the supreme court isn't corrupted by billionaires they just happen to only want to do things that benefit the ultra wealthy. The gifts from mega rich people to Thomas mean nothing.

ItS jUsT a cOiNcIdEnCe...

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Judges shouldn't have agendas, just dockets.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 178 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

Artist's Rendition:

[-] misericordiae@literature.cafe 64 points 2 days ago

Fanart of artist rendition:

Lemongrab from Adventure Time, yelling. The caption reads, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!"

I have the sound of this stuck in my head now, thanks.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 117 points 2 days ago

"The agency claims authority to regulate everything from a power lawnmower's design," he wrote, "to the level of 'contact between trainers and whales at SeaWorld.'"

I fail to see anything wrong with either thing like.. is he just mad it is not the people who sell lawn mowers should decide what's safe?? Please please please don't tell me Americans are going to dip to this new level of cognitive dissonance

[-] ThePyroPython@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

Coming soon: the freedom to be maimed by corporations cutting corners on dangerous equipment design and safety equipment provision.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] nifty@lemmy.world 37 points 2 days ago

Can we make people who vote for lack of safety regulations work affected jobs for about a year or so? How’d you think they’d vote then?

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 days ago

I used to argue that whoever was ultimately responsible for safety at a chemical plant should be required to have them and their family live close enough that if shot goes wrong, they'll definitely be among the worst effected.

But then I live within the greater Charleston, WV area, and there's a plant in a town called Institute here that makes and handles MIC, most notoriously known for being made less poisonous for use as pesticide and being the stuff that leaked and caused the Bhopal incident back when.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 88 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The program for rolling back hard fought union victories is going full steam ahead.

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 and that only their fellow worker can be relied upon to stick for them.

[-] el_bhm@lemm.ee 21 points 2 days ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

Anyone notice that the prez can have this guy killed with no consequences?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 109 points 2 days ago

I wonder how much money his handlers paid for that position.

[-] WYLD_STALLYNS@lemmy.dbzer0.com 78 points 2 days ago

They got him cheap, the man is a bargain whore… actually, I take that back, I wouldn’t want to insult prostitutes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 63 points 2 days ago

Boy am I gonna miss being able to easily multiply by nine

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone 97 points 2 days ago

I hope he finds a missing guard rail and falls to his death.

[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 66 points 2 days ago

I hope he gets on a private jet with 5 other justices and some of his billionaire buddies for a trip to some tropical resort only for the plane to ~~get shot down through a president's official act~~ suddenly go down, totally unexpectedly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 61 points 2 days ago

Of course Clarence, the most openly corrupt, would be the one to dissent against the OSHA case. Clarence can go fuck himself

[-] Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 days ago

Every little while ( more frequently these days) i hear the voice of Anita Hill in my head.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 41 points 2 days ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days 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 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] uis@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

I hope Putin will be sent to Hauge(or die) BEFORE USA spontaniously combusts. Then Russia can do russian reversal on american brain drain.

Until then, consider EU.

[-] neidu2@feddit.nl 23 points 2 days ago

Bezoz took him on holiday, probably

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago

Wow I love reading about these wacky sovcits. They always say the most silly things.

Wait, what? WHO said that? Justice of which court?

[-] 242@lemmy.cafe 27 points 2 days 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
754 points (99.1% liked)

News

21721 readers
3303 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS