[JonPreston]

[Lazamataz]

After the left tried to destroy his reputation, you’d think he’d be a little less eager to please them.

[Dead Corpse]

Can’t believe how disappointing Brett has been. Can’t believe we supported that guy against the attacks levied against him...

[ItMatters2Me]

Or…
Isn’t the healthcare ruling, tied to recipients that benefit from the acceptance of federal money, really the same deal that’s going on with churches and the tax exempt benefit that they receive? How is it different?
If you are ok with taking the fed money/benefit, then you must play by all the rules that the fed sets - and you understand this before you step into this agreement.

Perhaps this is Kavanaughs’ angle. A possible silver lining, this ruling could result in more entities rethinking their plans to partner with the government in the future.

[glennaro]

What I find disconcerting is Kavanugh's ruling that reveals he has discovered a Constitutional provision (the only matter the USSC is to consider) that the federal government may require American citizens to receive an experimental injection that the executive branch of government, through its own unilateral rationale and mandate, determines is a "good enough reason" to do so. That in this instance, the class of American citizens defined as "healthcare workers" are subject to a government mandate that no legislature (that is, the people's direct representatives) has ever been consulted, much less voted on.

This is a dangerous precedent both in terms of clearly being a direct violation of the Bill of Rights as well as in terms of granting a powerful new unilateral authority to the executive branch and its myriad bureaucracies which the legislative branch has no say. The Constitution was expressly designed to prevent such a consolidation of power into one branch of government which has already achieved significant new power through the use of "executive orders".

Almost all tyrannical actions are supported by "a good reason" ... and Kavanaugh, be a learned man and all, must know this! This man, a man I supported fully throughout his confirmation hearings, is on his way to becoming this generation's David Souter ... a sad thing for the concepts of honor and integrity ... and a tragic thing for our American Republic.

[dforest]

I heard that. It was quick and I laughed.

We should have donated this sucker to Christine Balsey Ford.

[Alberta's Child]

I agree with Tucker Carlson on the merits of the vaccine mandates in general, but I don't think the arguments against the vaccine mandates for health care providers weighed very heavily in a Supreme Court case. He's being too harsh here.

1. The OSHA mandate was overturned because it was correctly determined to be an abuse of the Federal government's power as a regulatory body (through OSHA).

2. The CMS mandate was upheld because it wasn't really a case about government power as a regulatory body. Instead, it involved the Federal government's role as the "customer/client" in a relationship with health care facilities (through Medicare and Medicaid).

The difference may seem subtle, but from a legal standpoint it is huge. The Supreme Court basically determined (and they are on fairly strong legal ground here) that the CMS case was ultimately about contract law, not constitutional law.

Something else to keep in mind here is that in both cases, the legal challenges were based on constitutional questions related to the EMPLOYERS, not the EMPLOYEES. What this means is that the whole issue of vaccine mandates is not about the rights of employees (that would be a separate legal challenge), but about the limitations of government power over private-sector employers.

[euram]

he’s still afraid that if he doesn’t toe the liberal line, they will impeach him. Barrett isn’t much better.