> This was a motion for a temporary injunction so all the court said was "there are grave statutory and constitutional concerns" and so the relief was granted.
That's right. And two months ago, with a case that had clear and obvious "constitutional concerns" (seriously, it undermined Roe!) they said "Nah, we're good" and refused to stay it. That's the problem here. They aren't making a legal finding at all, they're making a political finding. And you know it.
> The real debate is whether it is in OSHA's purview to do this
Not in this case it isn't. That hasn't even been heard yet. The question is whether or not to stay the mandate only.
That's right. And two months ago, with a case that had clear and obvious "constitutional concerns" (seriously, it undermined Roe!) they said "Nah, we're good" and refused to stay it. That's the problem here. They aren't making a legal finding at all, they're making a political finding. And you know it.
> The real debate is whether it is in OSHA's purview to do this
Not in this case it isn't. That hasn't even been heard yet. The question is whether or not to stay the mandate only.