Here’s a quick summary of the U.S. Supreme Court COVID-shot mandate decision decisions. If one works for a private firm with more than 100 employees the Occupational Health and Safety Administration may not order them to have a COVID shot. However, if they’re a healthcare worker at a facility that receives Medicare and Medicaid funding you can. Americans lose their bodily integrity and religious freedom if they work in hospitals that provide Medicare and Medicaid services, but not for private companies. That’s what we call incoherent.
Chief Justice John Roberts has a fingerprint all over this duplicity.
Americans who believe in freedom were relieved that OSHA’s rule that employers must require employees to have a COVID shot was stayed by the nation’s highest courts. The justices concluded that even though Congress and states didn’t give OSHA the power to order mandatory shots and there was ample evidence of intent and action showing they didn’t want it the executive branch agency couldn’t. The White House Chief Of Staff Ron Klain’s “workaround” to get Congress to issue vaccine mandate edicts across agencies didn’t work.
The rule was not implemented by the majority of signatories until they appeal to the Supreme Court. In a per Curiam ruling the court stated that “permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily living — simply because most Americans work and face the same risks — would significantly increase OSHA’s regulatory authority, without clear congressional authorization.”
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito and others, stated that administrative agencies must be able to trace their power back to Congress if they want to regulate the daily lives of millions of Americans. The answer is obvious: According to the law as it stands now, that power rests at the States and Congress, and not OSHA.” It is worth noting that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor didn’t believe so.
However, the facts were not clear in the case that involved people who worked at facilities that treated Medicare or Medicaid patients and received federal funds. According to the majority of unsigned opinions, it was clear that the [Health] Secretary [Xavier Becerra] did in fact not exceed his statutory authority by requiring that facilities that are covered under the interim rule ensure that all employees are vaccinated against COVID-19.
While they may be interpreting the law, facts are what matter. Oral arguments showed that this decision was dominated by the liberal justices who liberally misunderstood COVID facts. What other explanation could there be for requiring hospital workers to receive mRNA spike proteins? They said that there was no “notice and comments” period. The result is a shortage of employees. Pfft. We are certain Secretary Becerra considered all of these questions before he implemented a policy that would affect ten millions of health care workers.
They concluded that Becerra acted reasonably despite the grave “flaws” the “District Courts discovered in the Secretary’s analysis, especially concerning the nature and reliability of the data used. In reviewing arbitrarily and capricious challenges, courts have the role of “simply ensur[e] the agency has acted within the zone of reasonableness.”
Guess which justices voted for this? Justices Roberts & Kavanaugh.
Roberts’ split the baby approach to jurisprudence seems to have dominated this decision. So that the ObamaCare decision was not truncated, the man who rewrote portions of it was back with a Ron Klain workaround.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas stated that a “hodgepodge,” uniform set of rules does not support a “nationwide mandate for vaccines,” particularly without congressional input. Thomas, Barrett, Justice Gorsuch, and Alito joined the opinion. This basically stated that the Health and Human Services secretary and his minions were making up the right for a mandate. He concluded that it did not.
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and the liberal wings were there to prove Thomas wrong.
They’re smart, but they are the smart ones. Justice Breyer claimed that America was infected with “750 million” COVIDs, despite the fact that America is home to 332 million people. This statement comes just one week before oral arguments. Justice Sotomayor’s fabricated statistic said that 100,000 children were hospitalized with COVID. Many of them were on ventilators. Justice Kagan claimed that COVID shots were the most effective treatment for the disease and the best, disregarding natural immunity and preventative medication, something she had never heard of.
Chief Justice Roberts stated that justices should “call the strikes and balls” at their confirmation hearing. He didn’t mention that he would give each side different balls or change the score sheet as an umpire.
The CMS decision comes as the Democrats and the CDC and their stenographers have finally begun to leak some truth about COVID – something that the tyrants in Big Tech have spent two years trying to deny.
These Supreme Court decisions are coming days after California was forced by the Supreme Court to reverse their lies and issue a Rule allowing positive but symptomatic COVID healthcare workers to treat COVID patients at hospitals and other medical facilities. Roberts is not on the case. Becerra is an attorney and former congressman who has no knowledge about health care issues. How can he be “reasonable” with his hodgepodge of COVID mandates, if his home state has just given the game away?
This ruling was made on the very day Maryland Governor Larry Hogan acknowledged that Kagan’s holy vaccinations weren’t working in his nursing home protocol. Hogan recognized the rise in milder cases and required all visitors to their loved ones to be positive for COVID. Unvaccinated, but all persons, because the shots aren’t enough to prevent the virus from being transmitted, especially this type. Hogan knows this, but not these smarty-pants justices. How can it be “reasonable” that the HHS secretary doesn’t acknowledge that shots don’t always work before issuing his “hodgepodge” provisions that make up a shot mandate Ask John Roberts. He can probably rewrite Becerra’s reasoning for you.