The US Supreme Court struck down the OSHA vaccine mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees. The vote was 6-3 with the three dissenting justices being of the woke progressive variety who believe that the government should be allowed to suppress liberty whenever it suits their needs.
You can read the opinion here.
Opinions like these are frustrating to a large extent. One would really like to see the Court take on the issue of the personal liberty that is being infringed whenever the government does something like this. At some point it would behoove us to have the Court answer the question “Is a mandate by the government to inject yourself with an experimental and potentially deadly substance under coercion a violation of one’s liberties.” However, the Court rarely does that and this was no exception.
In this case (OSHA mandate), the OSHA emergency rule constituted a vast overreach into the general field of public health. The Court noted that OSHA has not been granted such authority. Please be reminded that the Court made no pronouncement about whether it would look favorably or unfavorably on such an authority if it existed.
The Court noted:
“Although COVID– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization….
“OSHA’s indiscriminate approach fails to account for this crucial distinction— between occupational risk and risk more generally—and accordingly the mandate takes on the character of a general public health measure, rather than an ‘occupational safety or health standard….’
Again, note that the Court is only ruling on whether OSHA has congressional authority to do what it tried to do. The Court ruled that it does not have such authority.
Please be reminded that this was an emergency rule. The normal rule making process requires hearings and the opportunity for public input. The administration had crafted this emergency rule as a work-around to constitutional limits.
The three woke, progressive justices that dissented called the pandemic unparalleled in the country’s history. As such, the government should be allowed to promote mandatory shots whenever it so chooses. In other words, these justices believe in an all-powerful government that has the right to dictate how we live our lives. What’s next? Can OSHA dictate what we are allowed to eat? How much we must exercise? Etc.?
Some refer to Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer as liberal justices. That is laughable and obscene. They do not believe in individual liberty for the general public. How can they be considered liberal?
Justice Breyer was the one who used the term unparalleled. I would agree that the response to this illness is unparalleled in our country’s long history. But not in the way Breyer intended. Breyer was alluding to death and serious illness that needed a top-down intervention. Breyer appears to be ignorant of the fact that many effective treatments do exist. This puts him on the same ignorance level as Justice Sotomayor, the “wise” Latina, who claimed during oral arguments that 100,000 kids were in hospitals on ventilators. The real number of children in the hospital WITH COVID is less than 4,000. Most of them were diagnosed with COVID AFTER they entered the hospital for other reasons. How did this woman ever get on the Supreme Court?
The real unparalleled part of this illness history has been the suppression of knowledge of efficacious early treatments by the US government. Time and again such treatments were smeared by people who knew better. Dr. Fauci, the “sainted” one, had supported chloroquine during the first SARS epidemic. Now HCQ was actively opposed. Doctors were told they would lose their licenses if they prescribed HCQ. Pharmacists were similarly threatened. Why?
The same can be said about other treatment protocols such as Ivermectin. Ivermectin is so safe it has been an over-the-counter drug in many countries. In this country the FDA tweeted derogatory comments about the drug. This is unparalleled.
There is one other part of Breyer’s dissent that I agree with. At one point Breyer makes the point that the justices lack the expertise to assess workplace health and safety issues. This is true. However, that is not what was being adjudicated and Breyer undoubtedly knew this. This was an attempt at a deflection intended to undermine the authority of the Court. Breyer concluded this section by saying “Today, we are not wise.” This statement I wholeheartedly agree with. The three progressive justices clearly were not wise to push the abolition of individual freedoms. Don’t they believe in “My body, my choice?”
This ruling is one small step in the right direction. The whole vaccine push was and still is a scam to fill the pockets of Big Pharma and anyone else who benefits from their largesse. We need more such steps to re-establish the individual freedoms that we once enjoyed in this country.
You are not alone!
Do not cave into them!
You can make a profound difference!
Godspeed!