Posted on 01/15/2022 1:17:28 PM PST by PTBAA
I believe most people are familiar with the Biblical tale of Solomon, the king, almost as wise as Joe Biden, solving the problem of who was the actual mother of a contested child.
Solomon proposed to split the child, knowing that the true mother would rather lose her child than kill it and that the spiteful imposter mother would agree to kill the child to spite the actual mother. Things ended happily ever after with the wise king reuniting the mother and child.
Our not-so-wise Supreme Court decided it was better to split the constitutional baby and call it a day. I am referring to the split ruling of the Court.
The Biden Regime could not use the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA) to impose a vaccine mandate on private businesses with more than 100 employees. But it was OK for the Health and Human Services (HHS) agency to impose that same mandate on the employees of private medical facilities because they accept federal Medicare and Medicaid dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at granitegrok.com ...
Outcome-based ambulance chasers, not jurists grounded in the Constitution (Clarence Thomas excepted).
The Founders got a tremendous amount right. But one of the areas I think they fell short is with the Supreme Court. I wish we had Constitutional language that mandated that every Supreme Court decision explicitly quoted Constitutional language that supported their decision (ex. Gun control: show me Constitutional language that explicitly says the government has the power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. HA!)
IMO, the federal government has no business mandating anything to do with medicine. I’d like to know why the Supreme Court feels it has the ability to say, “Let’s do this, but not do that, because that would be too much”. HINT: It’s all too much. They ought to see that. But I guess they don’t.
The court determined that Congress did delegate that authority to CMS, but did not delegate the authority for that broad of a mandate to OSHA. In fact, in the OSHA decision, the Court stated that it might permit a much more narrowly drawn mandate by OSHA to survive, if it only applied to people in certain close quarters, etc.
I don't agree that either of them should have been permitted on constitutional grounds, but it is incorrect for the article to discuss this as if the dividing line between the two cases was constitutional. It was not.
I hate to get personal or overly simplistic, but was this an example of how John Roberts like to split the difference, avoid sweeping landmark decisions, as we have heard sometimes with other cases?
In this case, the court overturned one set of regulations, but upheld them in another situation, the situation with healthcare workers.
And so then John Roberts can claim he’s not a knee jerk conservative,when he’s criticized by the liberal pundit class, he and his defenders can point to decisions such as this one as evidence of how open minded he is, etc.
The court basically said the authority to mandate vaccines belongs to Congress and not the Executive. And Congress had authorized CMS to regulate facilities providing care funded by Medicare.
Congress didn’t provide any clear authority to OSHA. Had Congress provided that authority the court would have sided with OSHA.
There was no “split decision”. THe decision was the authority has to come from Congress not the executive. CMS did have congressional authority, OSHA didn’t.
I can imagine the steam coming out of Scalia’s ears if he was alive to see that idiocy.
So the implication is that if there were a law, passed by Congress, authorizing OSHA to have these powers, then that would be constitutional.
The fact that the SCOTUS decided that the HHS has control of over the bodies of medical workers based on their interpretation of the enabling legislation is a defacto approval of its Constitutionality.
I’d love for someone on the SCOTUS to point which of the enumerated powers permits the federal government to impose medical mandates on anyone.
Correct. That's the way the court ruling reads.
You mean the Scalia pious Catholic that was BFF with Satan-worshipping Ruthie Ginsburg? That Scalia?
That's why people who are saying these two decisions contradict each other are simply wrong. Both of them, unfortunately, found that the federal government does have the power to impose a vaccine mandate. The only difference was how the Court interpreted the two different statutes.
SCOTUS = Supreme Clowns of the United States
“So the implication is that if there were a law, passed by Congress, authorizing OSHA to have these powers, then that would be constitutional.
Correct. That’s the way the court ruling reads.”
That is truly terrifying. What the hell happened while we were sleeping?
To SCOTUS's credit, they blocked the executive mandate for lack of a clear authorization from Congress. But SCOTUS does seem to be acknowledging that Congress has that authority.
And it's unimaginable that they would overturn the precedents and upend senior's social security and Medicare at this point.
The "reserved to the states" clause was apparently never interpreted by SCOTUS as broadly as we tend to think. And remains tenuously on life support because Social Security and Medicare set a precedent.
As interstate commerce and travel grows, it's hard to imagine the 10th doing anything but shrinking further in relevance.
And the only way I see to restore the 10th is to pass a Constitutional Amendment(s) that specifically carve out authority for popular Federal programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and any others that make sense to keep at the Federal level. Provide a transition plan for transferring others programs back to the state. And enumerating specific rights of the states that are not to be infringed by the Federal Government. Keep the reserved to the states cause for those things you can't foresee.
Nixon signed OSHA in 1970
Tired of these unelected jackasses. The 3 libs votes should have never counted..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.