Mandates, Social Credit, Devin Nunes

It all kinda hangs together—even the Devin Nunes defamation case, since it’s all about the Liberal World Order controlling and suppressing the rest of us.

Let’s start with a nice tweet from Emerald Robinson. In it she ties the pandemic to the injections to … movement control and totalitarian social control through a Chicom style social credit system:

Our best hope within the Constitutional framework, beyond continued resistance, lies in the courts. I saw a brief news item about the UAB hospital in Alabama being forced to back down on their mandate (exceptional in Alabama) because of threatened lawsuits from personnel. Karl Denninger does a nice job today summarizing the legal considerations surrounding such cases (KD picked up the UAB story):

Now It Is TRULY Coming Apart

KD makes the point that others have already: OSHA doesn’t make laws, only regulations. There is plenty of actual law regarding the permissible scope of regulations that courts consider. Courts don’t like the regulatory process being used to do an “end run” around a Constitutional Branch of Government—Congress. The current majority on the SCOTUS is especially skeptical of the abuse of the administrative agencies to work around Congress.

I predicted when this BS started that OSHA would fail in this regard for several reasons.  Chief among them is that it is a major rule impacting millions.  This is not an emergency situation at one company or even within a single industry; it is intended to blast the entire nation's workforce at once with a mandate.  This triggers a whole host of scrutiny requirements which are very unlikely to succeed and will be immediately challenged -- along with filings asking for injunctions to bar enforcement until a ruling on the merits is made.

Said ruling will require hearings, trials, and ultimately likely go before the US Supreme Court.  It will take months if not years to go through that process.  I remind you that an injunction requires:

1. You are likely to win.  OSHA has not issued a rule of this sort of scope in a very long time, and certainly not on an emergency basis.  The entire premise of an "emergency" 18 months into this pandemic is a joke; Congress has had a year and a half to consider legislation and has not.  That standing alone like dooms the rule.  But there's much more -- ...

2. Irreparable injury that cannot be compensated for with money.  Losing a job or worse, permanently damaging your health qualifies.  No problem there.

3. The threatened injury if the order goes into effect exceeds that if not.  The status quo is what that's measured against; this one is somewhat of a tougher call, but likely wins.

4. The injunction is not adverse to the public interest. 100 million Americans are the public interest.  This is not a majority rule question; impacting a huge number of people certainly reaches this threshold.

The reference to hearings is especially important. The government—especially CDC—has been hiding the data. Everything that we’ve been talking about here for over a year will be fair game. Those challenging the mandates WILL demand data from the government—and the courts WILL require that the data be turned over. Moreover, the government WILL be challenged regarding the adequacy of data measures: how “cases” were counted, how vax injuries were counted—or not counted. Vax safety, vax effectiveness—it will all be on the table. The courts will NOT feel obliged to show OSHA much if any deference.

And finally, Professor Jonathan Turley has a very interesting article about Devin Nunes’ defamation case:

Rep. Nunes Wins Major Victory In Defamation Case Against Ryan Lizza and Hearst

Here’s what’s interesting in this Eighth Circuit case. The Appellate Court agreed that, under the exacting standards of existing law, Nunes’ original complaint failed to establish “actual malice”, which is the standard of defamation for “public figures.” That means that “public officials and public figures must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.” However …

The Court didn’t stop there. After Nunes had specifically denied Lizza’s smears Lizza went on to retweet and link to his article, once again suggesting wrongdoing on the part of Nunes. That constituted, in the Court’s view, a “republication” of the original article and, in light of Nunes’ denials, could be regarded as “reckless disregard of the truth”:

“The complaint here adequately alleges that Lizza intended to reach and actually reached a new audience by publishing a tweet about Nunes and a link to the article. In November 2019, Lizza was on notice of the article’s alleged defamatory implication by virtue of this lawsuit. The complaint alleges that he then consciously presented the material to a new audience by encouraging readers to peruse his “strange tale” about “immigration policy,” and promoting that “I’ve got a story for you.” Under those circumstances, the complaint sufficiently alleges that Lizza republished the article after he knew that the Congressman denied knowledge of undocumented labor on the farm or participation in any conspiracy to hide it.”

In his concluding paragraphs Turley explains why this case could prove important:

This could present a major new precedent if it is appealed to the Supreme Court. First, it could allow the Court to review New York Times v. Sullivan given the questions raised by some justices recently about the case. Second, even if Sullivan is safe, it could expand possible liability by treating social media links and retweets as republications.

We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools. This ruling could present a serious push back on advocacy journalism where the line between fact and opinion is becoming increasingly blurry.

There is a fair amount of sentiment on the SCOTUS for tossing Sullivan as clearly unworkable. Will the Court decide this is the case to use for that reconsideration of defamation law? Well, the justices are “public figures”, too. They have an interest, but they won’t be recusing.