Sun. Jun 4th, 2023

On January 7th, 2022 the US Supreme court heard two sets of oral arguments over Biden government’s so-called vaccine mandates. Bidenites lost the first 6-3, titled National Federation of Independent  Businesses vs the Department of Labor, OSHA (consolidated with Department of Labor OSHA vs Ohio et al, filed against Biden by 27 states).  Here I’ll be covering this case, which deals with the broad sweeping general forced vaccination program that Biden attempted to institute upon essentially the entire American workforce.  Biden narrowly won (5-4) a second case titled Biden vs. Missouri et al, which addresses a similar mandate for health care workers in facilities receiving federal Medicare and

The case in question is over Biden’s attempted use of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to implement a vaccine coercion program.  OSHA is an agency under the US Department of Labor, created by congress via the 1970 OSH Act to address rising tide of workplace injuries in the 1960s.  Biden administration tried to subvert this law originally enacted for a different purpose to implement its morally bankrupt vaccination mandates (underscoring the danger that every inch given to a government with the best of intentions is a mile waiting to be lost).  The court took a week to deliberate the case and issued its opinion on 13th of January, 2022, essentially — and hopefully finally — blocking Biden’s overreach.

The fundamentals of the decision are quite plain, requiring no legal qualification to comprehend:

OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.

From Nero to Stalin, through out history tyrants turn to “states of emergency” to shoehorn their designs into place.  When a crisis isn’t immediately available, they create one.  Whether Covid crisis is 100% manufactured or not, whether or not it is Neros deliberate fire, its utility as a tool for ushering in bigger designs is far too obvious for anyone with an ounce of intelligence not to notice.  The court isn’t fooled:

As its name suggests, OSHA is tasked with ensuring occupational safety—that is, “safe and healthful working conditions.” §651(b) … Such standards must be “reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment.” §652(8) (emphasis added). They must also be developed using a rigorous process that includes notice, comment, and an opportunity for a public hearing. §655(b). …  The Act contains an exception … for “emergency temporary standards.” §655(c)(1). … permissible, however, only in the narrowest of circumstances. …  Prior to the emergence of COVID–19, the Secretary had used this power just nine times before (and never to issue a rule as broad as this one). Of those nine emergency rules, six were challenged in court, and only one of those was upheld in full.

But wouldn’t the work places be safer without Covid, with vaccinations, and masks and all that?  This is a road many mandate lovers go down.  A blind alley according to the court:

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.

In the end the ruling is about overreach and misuse of authority:

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute.
They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” … The [OSHA] Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.  … Act’s provisions typically speak to hazards that employees face at work. … And no provision of the Act addresses public health more generally, which falls outside of OSHA’s sphere of expertise.

I highly recommend reading the entire opinion, it is a thing of beauty.  Every single pro-mandate argument I have ever heard anywhere has been systematically dismantled.  This one is my favorite:

The dissent contends that OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency … But a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed. A vaccination, after all, “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.” … Contrary to the dissent’s contention, imposing a vaccine mandate on 84 million Americans in response to a worldwide pandemic is simply not “part of what the agency was built for.” …

There is hope for freedom yet.  All our institutions haven’t gone completely rotten.  Yet.  Even though I don’t live in the US, I was anxiously awaiting this decision because I believe it will have a domino like effect of some proportion around the world.  Ever since lady liberty raised its torch from the shores of this then new nation it has been a light to the world.  Let the light shine on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *