The Supreme Court Ruling on Vaccine Mandates, Good and Bad...

The court struck down the OSHA mandate, but upheld the mandate for employers that accept Medicare or Medicaid cash.

There is a good side to this and a bad side.

The good side is that large amounts of people will be able to keep their jobs without having to forgo vaccination.

The bad side is that the court basically said that congress abdicated their authority on the issue, as it relates to employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The government basically OWNS those employees at that point.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift lower court stays that had halted enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emergency regulation, finding the government’s challenge to it would probably be successful. The rule, now in effect, requires more than 10 million employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

In this case, all three liberal justices–Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor—sided with the government in the court’s opinion in Biden v. Missouri. Two conservatives, Roberts and Kavanaugh, also sided with the government.

The majority opinion states: “Congress did grant authority to the health secretary to promulgate” regulations he considers necessary to protect health and safety. Although a vaccination mandate is unprecedented, “we agree with the government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,” they added.

Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

The case is “only about whether [HHS] has the statutory authority to force health care workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave [HHS] that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal,” the dissent states.

This is Obamacare coming back to haunt everyone. I covered this years ago, long before Obamacare was passed.

The word Commissioner [Think HHS Secretary] is referenced in the bill 203 times. Nearly every time the word Commissioner is used, there is a variable to be determined, or a definition to be defined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has broad sweeping power to shape nearly the entire health care industry. This is crucial to understanding how this legislation works. There are only a few exclusions by which State Law can override the decisions of the Commissioner. Also the Commissioner, "shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The democrats have unchecked power with control of both the House and the Senate. There will be no way to stop the appointee for the position of Health Choices Commissioner. I guess we had better hope they pick someone who doesn't want to destroy the current system.

This is what happens when congress gives unchecked power to some czar-type official.

This will ultimately be how they get their "Voter Rights Act" originally (H.R. 1 / S. 1) enacted.

If they can’t get (H.R. 1 / S. 1) passed outright, they will create a new czar to oversee elections, that czar will have the authority (granted by congress) to make it happen. This is how it’s done in Washington. Obamacare was the same way. They created a position called the “Health Choices Commissioner” (in the original ACA bill) later renamed. They didn’t pass Obamacare in one swoop. They created the framework by which they could mandate all the necessary parts of Obamacare through intermediaries --effectively side-stepping congress..

I think that we've been under the rule of a single party system for much longer than many people are willing to admit.

Only time will tell if we can pull out of this as a nation.

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"