by tptacek on 10/25/22, 10:46 PM
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.
by czinck on 10/25/22, 10:25 PM
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.
by jakogut on 10/25/22, 10:36 PM
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?
by tb_technical on 10/26/22, 12:09 AM
They took people's livelyhoods away, and now they gotta pay.
by pseudolus on 10/26/22, 12:56 AM
FYI, the case was decided in Richmond County a/k/a Staten Island, arguably NYC's most conservative borough. The judge, a Republican, was elected in 2018. [0].
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Porzio
by georgeplusplus on 10/26/22, 3:57 AM
What was wild is the amount of hate and vitriol directed towards those who chose not get to vaccinated and lost or risked losing their jobs.
This forum was not exempt from that hate.
I hope this court opinion is enough to sway the opinion of those who held such extreme beliefs in this vaccine mandate that there are different opinions, and it doesnt have to be so extreme when deciding how to move forward with things that affect peoples livelihoods. Sometimes you do what is best for you and I do what is best for me is a perfectly logical and sane reasoning.
by lettergram on 10/26/22, 1:17 AM
by hitpointdrew on 10/25/22, 9:53 PM
Wow, NY finally does something right.
by aaomidi on 10/25/22, 11:05 PM
Back pay? Seriously? I thought people weren’t happy about executive power through judicial means, but I’m seeing that same group of people celebrate this.
Also note: the NY Supreme Court is actually the lowest court level in NY. Articles like this are being misleading on purpose.
by olliej on 10/26/22, 8:22 AM
Does that mean NY employees who don't want covid can stop working and still be paid?
by notRobot on 10/25/22, 10:24 PM
[pdf]
by paulwilsondev on 10/26/22, 6:46 AM
another win for the anti-vaxxers
by 1MachineElf on 10/26/22, 3:50 AM
Now how will we force people to do unpopular things without the ability to deprive them of their livelihood?
by Aunche on 10/26/22, 1:25 AM
I can understand why the vaccine mandate would be unconstitutional as a whole, but why shouldn't the city be allowed to fire whoever they feel like firing? New York is an at will state.
by hash872 on 10/26/22, 12:19 AM
I've been thinking a lot about judicial review in common law democracies recently, and I tentatively think a better system would be to vastly expand the number of judges that are involved in making a decision. Example, you'd still have a tiered court system, and your case would still be heard in front of say a 3-9 panel appeals court- but after they write their decisions, a couple hundred other appeals judges at the same level get to a simple cast up or down vote on the decision, remotely. That way the case is decided by a larger, more stable pool of qualified judges- it's not like 1 judge dies, is replaced by the other party, and now that appeals court starts issuing totally partisan decisions the other way on a 5-4 vote.
It would hopefully make the judiciary overall less partisan, less of a high-stakes affair to nominate an appeals judge, and less swinging back and forth between 5-4 Democratic or Republican votes