Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to Biden's Vaccine Mandates

Wish you the best.

“All bets are off 50:50 OSHA mandate sticks because it allows for weekly testing.”

That weekly testing is only at the discretion of the employer. If the employer does not allow that, the employee must either take the vax or be terminated.

SCOTUS is always driven by the extension of a doctrine. If biden can order No Vax No Work, he can order no smoking. They won’t like that.

Excellent point. Let’s hope SCOTUS is in the mood to slap back Executive power.

That was declining to issue an injunction pending resolution; and not of the Federal requirement.

This court has been political.

Related, from scotusblog...

Justices will hear arguments on Jan. 7 in challenges to Biden vaccine policies

With all due respect to the Supreme Court, post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated, state sovereignty-ignoring justices need to start upholding their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution by being honest with everybody about the federal government's few, constitutionally enumerated powers, instead of playing the game that the feds can constitutionally justify everything that they do.

In fact, with wording examples like "quarantine laws, health laws of every description" used by justices approaching two centuries ago to clarify that healthcare is a state power issue, deciding that federal vaccine mandates are "constitutional" will further lower the Court's integrity imo.

From related threads...

Let's start with President Thomas Jefferson's writing that the feds have no express constitutional power to dictate policy for INTRAstate healthcare, a couple of justices seemingly borrowing wording from his clarification.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Many are the exercises of power reserved to the States wherein a uniformity of proceeding would be advantageous to all. Such are quarantines, health laws [emphasis added], regulations of the press, banking institutions, training militia, etc., etc." —Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1807.
”State inspection laws, health laws [emphasis added], and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embrace every thing in the territory of a state not surrendered to the general government. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, and health laws [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and others, which respect roads, fences, &c. are component parts of state legislation, resulting from the residuary powers of state sovereignty. No direct power over these is given to congress, and consequently they remain subject to state legislation, though they may be controlled by congress, when they interfere with their acknowledged powers." —Justice Joseph Story, Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, 1833.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
From the congressional record, clarification by Rep. John Bingham, the main author of the 14th Amendment:
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphasis added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So does Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers expressly say anything about intrastate healthcare?

Nope.

“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.

Next, regarding unconstitutional federal interference in 10th Amendment-protected state healthcare policy, let's consider something that lawless Speaker Pelosi didn't do regarding Obamacare that's arguably much worse than irresponsibly ramming unconstitutional Obamacare through the House imo.

Given the historical excerpts by respected constitutional experts indicating that the Constitution first needed to appropriately amended before passing something like Obamacare, Pelosi wrongly ignored the following situation. Although former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. had repeatedly introduced an Article V resolution to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states, Jackson's resolution was wrongly ignored both before and after Pelosi irresponsibly rammed the unread, undebated, unconstitutional Obamacare bill through the House.

If Pelosi had first led Congress to successfully petition the states to ratify a proposed healthcare amendment to the Constitution as a result of Rep. Jackson Jr.'s resolution, then I wouldn't be making this post. But given all the historical expert clarifications that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the power to establish something like Obamacare, she scandalously chose to ignore Jackson's resolution imo.

Finally, the Court needs to follow the good advice of Thomas Jefferson and interpret the fed's constitutionally limited powers narrowly, no peacetime federal power to mandate vaccines in this example. After all, if the states don't like the Court's narrow interpretation of federal government's intentionally few powers, then the states can always amend the Constitution to give the feds specific new powers.

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793."

Corrections, insights welcome.

The ultimate remedy for unconstitutionally big, alleged election-stealing, Democratic Party-pirated federal and state governments manufacturing crises to oppress everybody under their boots...

Consider that the states effectively have "veto power" over continued unpopular, unconstitutional actions of the feds.

More specifically, the states can effectively “secede” from the unconstitutionally big federal government by doing the following.

Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.

Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that propose an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16&17A).

In fact, I challenge the states to ram the repeal amendment for 16&17A through the ratification process faster than Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly rammed unconstitutional Obamacare through the House. /semi-sarc

Again, insights welcome.

Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States should be deemed as guiding a ruling as liberals pretend Roe v. Wade is. You were right to predicate your era of encroachment as post-FDR.

"You were right to predicate your era of encroachment as post-FDR."

Thanks for reply.

State sovereignty-ignoring FDR probably didn't like the Supreme Court's state sovereignty-respecting clarification of the already reasonably clear meaning of 10th Amendment (10A) in United States v. Butler, 1936.

"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.

But noting that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention didn't give ordinary citizen voters the specific power to vote for either president or senators, even though Congress blocked FDR from stacking the Court with justices who looked like he did (sarc), he was reelected enough times that he was able to build a state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice majority. (Social Darwinism trumps the 10A power of the people.)

FDR's justices then effectively reversed Court's previous clarification of 10A in Butler by politically nullifying 10A in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).

More specifically, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it, this "insight" into 10A arguable being used to justify unconstitutional federal interference in the affairs of the sovereign states since SCOTUS wrongly decided Wickard in Congress's favor imo.

"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

Regarding FDR's failed attempt to stack the Court, if FDR was so popular, certainly he could have led Congress to petition the states to amend the Constitution for his otherwise unconstitutional New Deal programs imo.

What am I overlooking?

Implicit in the ruling in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States is that Congress has no right to surrender it’s legislative function to the executive. That ruling of course killed FDR’s National Relief Act push... so like your other points it goes to separation of powers. I don’t know if there has been a broader separation of powers ruling since was my point.

Where do you get that they love FEDERAL mandates? Kavanaugh and barrett?