I think I agree with what I 'hear' one of you (Tanq?) saying...

That once you are given a vaccine, there is no taking back that position... nor can you compensate someone for the loss of work if they are forced out of work if you don't ultimately find in their favor.... so the courts are tending to side with the idea that we should not enforce the mandate until the arguments have been heard and appealed... since you can always get the vaccine later... after it is decided that you must (if that is the decision).

This is where 'what is legal' and 'what some people want' are in conflict.... and why you can't/shouldn't ask the courts and nominees to the courts to be part of 'progress'. Progress is a legislative act. The courts job is to make sure that such legislation is done in a way that does not subvert liberty. The left, with their 'packing the court' ideas (and the right in previous times) want a court that reflects their political views and seeks to find ways AROUND the law... because only politicians (who make the laws) run for office. THAT is the travesty.... because invariably, you will be asking people you put on the courts because they supported something you like to decide something that you will no doubt disagree with them about... i.e. Roberts and RvW vs The Individual Mandate.