[HN Gopher] NY Supreme Court reinstates all fired unvaccinated e...
___________________________________________________________________
NY Supreme Court reinstates all fired unvaccinated employees,
orders backpay
Author : bananapear
Score : 48 points
Date : 2022-10-25 21:51 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (iapps.courts.state.ny.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (iapps.courts.state.ny.us)
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| Wow, NY finally does something right.
| anm89 wrote:
| fazfq wrote:
| You don't have to excuse yourself by saying that you are fully
| vaccinated. Your opinion is equally as valid regardless of your
| vaccination status. Those who chose not to take the vaccine are
| also human beings.
| upsidesinclude wrote:
| Cheers!
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Yes, all those fascists. Just like the disgusting fascists that
| forced us to get childhood vaccines to brutally and cruelly
| protect us from getting polio, tetanus, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis
| A, Rubella, Measles, Whooping Cough, Rotavirus, Mumps,
| Chickenpox, Diphtheria ...
|
| Disgusting.
| anm89 wrote:
| Yeah, it's really sad to see all the covid survivors in Iron
| lungs.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| _Looks at the literal million dead Americans_ what
| survivors are we talking about again? If you got fired
| during the days where we finally had a vaccine and you
| refused to take it, you were fired for a very good reason.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| But if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread that means you
| were fired because of... what?
|
| "Get the vaccine to reduce your symptoms or I'll fire you
| incase it kills you!"
|
| It's not like the vaccine prevents spread to other
| coworkers, why require it?
|
| Everyone has a different health risk, let them decide
| whether they can weather a certain viral load.
|
| That is, unless, you have a vaccine that can actually
| prevent trasmission.
| mrhands556 wrote:
| Difference in those are vaccinations that yield quality, long
| lasting immunity whereas the Covid vaccine is comparable to
| the flu vaccine in terms of effectiveness. Also, those are
| battle tested and widely accepted at this point, but the
| Covid vaccine was a type of vaccine that reached production
| for the first time with these.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Not for flu though. And not experimental vaccines.
| tptacek wrote:
| This is a confusing headline. The judgement here is in NY state
| court, and pertains to employees of and in the City of New York,
| which enacted a vaccine requirement for employees of the city and
| later private employers in the city. Months later, Eric Adams was
| elected mayor of NYC, and he issued an executive order exempting
| athletes, performers, and artists from the mandate.
|
| Petitioners sued, saying that the mandate with the exemptions was
| essentially arbitrary, and the courts agreed. So what happened
| here is that Eric Adams sabotaged NYC's vaccine mandate.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| My state's republican governor sued mayors closing down
| construction sites during the peak of the pandemic, and also
| exempted a dizzying number of industries and sectors.
|
| For example: if you sold an ATV to a town police department,
| you were deemed an essential business and thus got to ignore
| the closure orders and keep your entire business, both offices
| and showrooms/repair centers, open.
|
| ...but then his administration also went around shutting down
| bicycle shops in the city. Guess what a lot of medical staff
| and "essential" blue-collar workers depend upon for
| transportation, particularly since the public transit system
| was largely shut down, dangerous to be on public-health-wise,
| and doesn't operate at hours useful for some shift workers?
|
| Eventually he got the message, but not after a lot of very
| cringe comments to the press about the pandemic being "real"
| and implying that bike shops were just frivolous luxury stores.
| bananapear wrote:
| Why would it make sense to exempt those people but not, say,
| firefighters?
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| It doesn't, that's the point. The mandate presumably would
| have been legal if Adams hadn't added those arbitrary
| exemptions.
| notRobot wrote:
| [pdf]
| czinck wrote:
| Because it's confusing: the NY Supreme Court is just a trial
| court, it's not at all like the US Supreme Court. The top
| appellate court is called the Court of Appeals. It's called
| "supreme" because it has general jurisdiction, as opposed to
| things like traffic court.
| troydavis wrote:
| Existing discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33336191
| warbler73 wrote:
| widowlark wrote:
| greymalik wrote:
| Why?
| tptacek wrote:
| Mail hn@ycombinator.com, don't post here about it.
| jakogut wrote:
| Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are
| overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional
| bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that
| overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those
| actions in the first place?
|
| The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA
| v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by
| declaring nearly all public spaces "sensitive areas" in which
| licensed individuals may not carry for their protection.
| Regardless of one's opinion of said rights, how do courts
| blatantly ignore rulings and orders from higher courts with no
| repercussions?
|
| How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional,
| and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend
| said rights and values, face no consequences?
| widowlark wrote:
| it's important to note that this is not the top court in new
| york, rather the beginning of the process of retrial and
| appeals. So, in effect, nothing will happen as a result of this
| ruling other than more appeals
| SllX wrote:
| The consequences in theory are political. Theoretically
| Congress should be impeaching Presidents and expelling members
| that do not uphold their oaths.
|
| Executing consequences into popular Presidents or other members
| of Congress would also be politicized and have political
| consequences for Congress, so it doesn't happen. That said,
| leaving impeachment or expulsion of legislative members to the
| Courts would also give _them_ too much power.
|
| So the real consequences are at election time. If you ran to
| retain your seat, and lost, that's your comeuppance. It's not
| granular, but it gets the job done eventually. This is also why
| control of the White House flips back and forth so much:
| nothing any President does is particularly popular most of the
| time, they just have the votes to do it. Incumbents do get
| massive advantages in staying power but in the present day, two
| terms looks like about the maximum we would be able to tolerate
| a President's political party in the Oval Office and typically
| after midterms they no longer have the votes in Congress
| either.
|
| Most of this is generally applicable to the States, but I don't
| know New York politics specifically but would note that the
| previous Governor was put into a position where he was pretty
| much forced to resign both for scandals and for the actions he
| took while in office; and that was a slow slow build up.
| kodah wrote:
| This is pretty good insight. Now I'm wondering what public
| data sources show overturned bills as well as all sponsors of
| a bill. I think Congress' website tracks the latter, but the
| former might be difficult to obtain.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| It's a little weird to be concerned about this now around COVID
| policies, and not during the last fifty years of laws passed by
| republican state legislatures that barely last past the ink
| drying on the law before getting slapped with an injunction and
| ultimately struck down by the courts, but not after the state
| AG wastes millions of dollars in taxpayer funds fighting it as
| high up the federal court system as possible.
|
| Just to name a few: Book bans, edicts on what doctor can or
| cannot say to patients (or must say to patients), ag-gag,
| voting restrictions, and anti-abortion-choice laws.
|
| All passed with the full knowledge they'll be struck down
| almost immediately, with the express purpose of tying up funds
| of progressive non-profits and getting to brag to their base
| about how they're trying to further 'The Cause' (you know how
| conservatives are always going on about "liberal virtue-
| signaling? As always, they're great at projection.)
| systemvoltage wrote:
| The Bonta team in California has been eggregiously playing the
| circuit-to-district football, violating fundamental rights of
| citizens. The 13th circuit is in bed with California state
| district attorney and the state legislator (both the husband
| and wife, "Bontas"). Wife is a legislator and the husband is
| the CA District attorney.
|
| Lawyers are totally baffled at what is going on.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| > How do courts declare certain executive orders
| unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to
| uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences?
|
| Same way no one suffered any consequences for deciding to
| support the opposition in the Syrian civil war to piss off
| Assad long after it was obvious they weren't going to get him
| out and the only consequence was going to be lots of dead
| Stands mom Syrians. Same way there were no consequences for
| bombing Libya into civil war and open air slave markets. Same
| way there were no consequences for no WMDs in Iraq.
|
| There needs to be a coalition to make them pay. It needs to be
| not just powerful enough, but committed.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first
| place
|
| You've hit the core problem of society/government that
| countless generations have tried to obfuscate via an academic
| body that implies that social interactions can be
| studied/understood like natural sciences.
|
| At the core, all social structure is built on the threat of
| violence - Commit non-violent white collar crime? Show up to
| court, because if you don't you'll get arrested. Run from the
| police when they try to arrest you? You'll get taken by force.
|
| Reject Capitalism? Starve to death on the streets.
|
| Sure, there's political theory and economics can act like
| "utility" drives all things, but at the end of the day, it's
| the threat of some sort of violently bad outcome that keeps
| society in check.
|
| The recent rub is that we have (probably correctly) decided
| that violence is bad and we should all just be chill and work
| together _because it 's good for all of us._ We've also created
| _hyper_ complex systems that couldn 't even theoretically be
| kept in check with violence (Who am I going to punch when I was
| duped by a crypto scam?).
|
| So instead of angry mobs tarring and feathering bad
| politicians/business people (probably bad) we just grouse on
| the Internet (bad but not _as_ bad).
|
| And stuff like this keeps happening, because an increasingly
| large number of people (especially the wealthy and politicians)
| are realizing the threat of violence isn't that great anymore.
| Like look at Elon Musk - his whole _deal_ is proving that there
| are no bad consequences to doing whatever he wants and he 's
| _revered_ for it because people who still have a risk of
| violence in their lives are _jealous_ but _believe they one day
| could get to a similar place._
|
| here's not really a solution other than figuring out how to may
| people be chill and cool (good luck).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-25 23:00 UTC)