Posted on 01/08/2022 6:20:07 AM PST by rktman
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday cited the Biden administration's admission that his COVID mandate for Americans is a "work-around," a path that essentially goes around what the law would require or allow.
His comments came as the six-member majority of the court that appear to be more conservative hinted about their decision in the pending case that challenges Joe Biden's demands that health care workers, and workers at large companies, can be forced to accept the experimental COVID shots.
Fox News noted that the justices seemed "split along ideological lines on vaccine requirements affecting nearly 100 million workers."
The three liberals on the court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer entered the courtroom with an agenda to affirm a decision that would allow Biden to do what he wants.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
They have a special vax just for elected officials and government employees they like. It might say it’s the vaccine on the bottle but it’s just saline
Our whole government has become an embarrassment.
BINGO! To them, it doesn't matter whether they win or not at this juncture. They managed to force millions to be vaccinated. And those lawsuits? Well, those will be against those mean nasty corporations that mandated vaccinations for employment. The OSHA statement was only "guidance", don't you know.......
They’re screwed anyways. I don’t believe anybody gave them immunity from vaccine caused deaths and injuries.
Infant trafficking and adoption fraud.
What I’ve been thinking all along.
π¨π·πππ¨π©πΈ
A big problem with OSHA regulations is their permanence.
COVID is transitory, by nature. It will soon fade away, completely. Omicron is merely a signpost along the way.
But the OSHA vaccination requirement in the workplace will endure, long after any necessity (real or imagined) has evaporated.
What I find most interesting is how this mandate is proceeding, outside of the regulatory promulgation process. Usually there is a notice of rule making posted in the Federal Register. A proposed regulation drafted and posted. Comment period, etc. Then a Final Rule,and effectively date.
This is an end run around the entire regulatory process, among other strange things.
I think I read there were 750,000 new cases the previous day, so yeah...he probably misspoke. But still, you would hope for precise and correct utterances from someone at this level of the game.
The companies put themselves at legal risk depending upon how the SCOTUS rulings come down. And how much do the companies want to shackle themselves with these regulations that cost them money and make them less competitive in attracting new employees?
I guess the question that must be asked is whether the OSHA mandate was welcomed by the companies so they could have the legal support to enact policies they wanted or that they are being forced to enact these policies due to pressure from Washington? I believe it is the latter.
Article 6 is where government officers are required to "be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
The oath has no teeth at all. There is no penalty for violating it, and indeed, 100% of the officials who violate the oath will swear that they are upholding it.
The cited case stands for the proposition that a federal ruling will always be held superior over a state ruling. And too, that the feds cannot, by definition, overstep. The feds are our protectors, so what they say is always properly superior. The issue in that case was school segregation on racial basis.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no `rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."
That statement will be declared upheld no matter which way SCOTUS rules on the OSHA regulation. There is no right in the constitution, to be free from forced vaccination. The government has the power to force you to wage violence (war), so forcing you to take medicine is easily a government power. All the court is trying to figure is whether this is a federal power and if so (they already decided it can be a federal power) who in the government is authorized to assert it.
Contrary to popular statement, the constitution IS a suicide pact. There is no limit to the power the feds will claim to themselves. Just give it time ...
Exactly. If this was proposed very early on in the Pandemic, say in May 20 20, or around that time frame then they may have a point to mandate things. But two years in and with supposedly 16 to 75% of the country vaccinated, you canβt claim emergency anymore.
In the meantime, millions have been working with no vaccination...and the death rate and/or hospitalization rate has not changed........even with millions vaccinated.
I listened to the 3 liberals & couldnβt believe the shrill, angry lies that spewed from their mouths! It was beyond embarrassing..
The wise Latina was the worst, so ignorant.
C’mon man! It’s a TAX!
agree, should of been 30 days tops, to give time for congress to act or not act.
COVID money has turned into a money laundering gift of the blue states and side operations wager some real arm twisting going on in the court now.
Is Bryer losing his mental capacities, also???
Is Breyer losing his mental capacities, also???
Did he ever have them?
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.