[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)