Roundtable: What about the president's vaccine mandate?
Editor's Note: This question was asked Monday before the Supreme Court had ruled to block the vaccine and testing mandate.
How do you think the Supreme Court should rule in the case of President Biden's vaccine mandate that would compel private employers with 100 or more employees to require vaccinations or require face masks be worn and employees tested regularly?
Unvaccinated are threat to public safety
The principle that securing public safety is the most important responsibility of government dates back to ancient Rome. The legal question before the Supreme Court is whether OSHA has the authority to issue this mandate without explicit Congressional approval. In the middle of a pandemic that will likely kill more than a million Americans, the administration’s authority to mandate vaccinations must be upheld.
Omicron is ripping through the nation, infecting the unvaccinated at rates 10 times higher than the vaccinated and sending them to the hospital at rates 14 times higher, according to the CDC. The unvaccinated are filling hospital beds that could otherwise house other seriously ill patients and putting severely overtaxed healthcare workers at risk. It’s irrelevant that the unvaccinated are willing to take the personal risk of getting ill themselves. What matters is that they are a threat to public safety. Employer mandates are the most effective means to increase the vaccination rate, with results up to 90%. Mandates will save lives and slow the trajectory of the pandemic. Preventing mandates on spurious, political, separation of powers grounds would be irresponsible. As the Supreme Court has itself said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. — David Amor
Requiring basic precautions not an overreach
Somehow protecting the larger population against a deadly pandemic became a political movement about suppressing individual rights. Since this disease occurred around presidential election time, our approach on how to address it is wildly different for some. There was a time when the losing party of a presidential election didn't openly advocate for the failure of the newly-elected president at the expense of the health and well-being of the entire country. Stopping the spread of COVID or the Omnicron variant should be a priority for everyone regardless of their political party.
Refusing to get vaccinated or wear a mask in public out of principle is incredibly selfish. President Biden isn't overreaching by requiring private companies of 100 or more employees to take the basic precautions to slow the spread of this disease. A legitimate argument can be made unvaccinated people pose a health risk to federal and essential personnel. Protecting the larger population is also a national security issue, and the Supreme Court should rule in the president's favor. — John Hunigan
Executive orders shouldn't go beyond executive branch
We have allowed our elected officials to assume far more power than our Constitution grants them. I think that the Supreme Court should rule against the vaccine mandate.
My understanding of “executive orders” is that the president could make them ONLY to people working in the executive branch. That definition has been expanded over the years, and I think it is dangerous. I oppose executive mandates/Orders that go beyond the Executive Branch; it doesn’t matter which President or which party is doing it. Allowing the President that kind of power could very easily lead to a dictatorship.
The approach on vaccinations is a “one-size-fits-all” approach and it will cause additional problems. For example, one side effect is that it causes the heart to be enlarged. This weakens the heart and is potentially lethal. Statistically, this occurs most often in young males but also can affect older persons who already experience heart problems. — Charlie Gruner
Shouldn't force someone to take vaccine
Warning! Unpopular opinion. I hope they DON’T rule in favor of the president’s mandate. How are you going, in a roundabout way, to force someone into putting something in their body they may not agree with. If other vaccines were required then this wouldn’t be much of an issue because they are a choice.
This country and world is becoming more divided. What’s happening is more of a divide. People now ask you if you’re vaccinated and if you’re not that can cost you your livelihood. For those unvaccinated, businesses will start charging to get tested and that’ll get costly. Eventually, they will be forced to get vaccinated or quit. Either way they’re doing something they really don’t want to do. We know COVID is real and these variants, but no one especially a job or anyone needs to know anyone’s medical decisions without their consent! My body my choice! — Courtney Wallace
Mandate seems like appropriate action in emergency
Some may see this as a questions of “rights,” “government overreach” or some other kind of unfairness. I see it as a question of appropriate action in an emergency — like throwing lifesavers to people in a shipwreck. We now have hospitals unable to care for normal medical emergencies like heart attack, stroke, and appendicitis, because people who refused vaccinations are now so desperately sick they’re filling emergency rooms and requiring the services of already overworked and understaffed medical facilities. I know three different people who’ve had critically ill family members put on gurneys hallways because there was no place else for them. And this was before the Cottage collapse. That is what’s not fair. I hope the court rules for the requirement. That will mean that employees of OSF, Burlington Northern, Knox College, District 205, Dick Blick , Bridgeway, Hill Correctional Center, Gates, the city of Galesburg, and any other employer of more than 100 people will all be expected to do their parts to keep Galesburg safer and our medical facilities able to operate more normally. — Laurie Muelder
Vaccine mandate one step too far
The Supreme Court will not compel private employers to mandate vaccines or masks. That mandate is one step too far at this point. However, the Supreme Court should let the mandate for healthcare workers be implemented. That kind of falls into the category of washing your hands when treating patients. Individual freedom has become a false rallying cry regarding the pandemic. This has been politicized to the point of detrimental ignorance.
The anti-vax/mask crowd will continue with their bloviating. Many of the fiercest anti-vax/anti-mask advocates have passed away from COVID complications. And, as usual, some of the deranged will dig up some conspiratorial theory that involves pedophiles or produce misinterpreted statistics or espouse the drinking of nasty things. This is done while hiding behind fake names on social media. Cowards. If I wanted to attack the United States, it wouldn’t be by dropping a nuke like some of us grew up believing in the “good ole’ days” (remember hiding under kindling?). I would sow misinformation to the point that it exists today and then slam an infectious disease on the land. Now some of the local state leaders are pushing or have laws that make vaccine and mask mandates illegal. Easy win for the bad guys in my fictional story. — Stephen Podwojski
Up to Supreme Court to draw the line
Liberals on this roundtable will say the court should give the president all the power he wants. Conservatives will say court should protect individuals’ freedom to decide for themselves.
I think the court should consider the facts and the law and decide the case without regard to the politics. That’s the way our system is supposed to work.
That may be difficult since two of the justices were making up their own facts during oral arguments, but perhaps most of them will perform their duty in accordance with their oath.
Balancing the power of the government and the freedom of the individual has been the fundamental question since the beginning of America. The Constitution tries to define it but for over 200 years it has fallen to the Supreme Court to draw the line.
What the court should do is draw that line according to the law, not opinion polls. — Harry Bulkeley
President limited to powers allocated by Congress
The oral arguments demonstrated a high degree of sophistication about the issue, the constitutional limits, and the tendency of individuals and institutions to expand their power whenever an opportunity appears.
I expect the majority of the court to rule that in this case federal bureaucracies and the president are limited to powers allocated by Congress. Hence, they will rule the mandate illegal.
While it seems unlikely that Congress will act (Republicans preferring a less powerful state, Democrats wanting a stronger one), state legislatures still could. Meanwhile, in Europe resistance is growing against all mandates.
Complicating the question of the “necessity” to act, the heads of the CDC and Pfizer have recently said that the vaccines reduce the severity of COVID-19 varieties, but do not ward off infection. Also, that three-quarters of those dying had serious health problems. As for individuals who have had COVID-19, would they need shots, too? — William Urban
The Community Roundtable runs each Sunday and is made up of local writers. Community writers answer one question each week in 150 words or fewer.
This article originally appeared on Galesburg Register-Mail: Roundtable: What about the president's vaccine mandate?
