Don’t Start The Party Just Yet: There’s
More Than Meets The Eye With SCOTUS Rulings

Yet another reason every single congress critter should be primaried. Never vote for an incumbent. Never. They are all corrupt once they get to Washington and a single term is all they should get until they actually show up and work for the people. In the primary, never vote for an incumbent In the general never vote for a Democrat. Until America learns this lesson, we will continue to get rulings such as this nonsense.

One of the rules of any court is to use the least scope of decision which will answer the question before it. If osha doesn’t have authority that’s the end of tge osha question and anything further would be daydreaming about what if. The medicare ruling was pretty clear that a vaccine mandate is ok where an agency is entrusted with preventing infection in its clients; there was no inquiry as to whether the vaccine was effective to do that. So it looks like the court would defer to the agency’s discretion as to the effectiveness of the vaccine- at least absent evidence that such reliance is irrational. So no the ruling was not that the vaccine is bad. Or that people have an absolute right to refuse and be left alone. We’ll have to take the victory we got and do the rest politically.

With healthcare ruling, federal government just took one a last steps to completely take over healthcare. They control most of it now via Obummercare, medicare, medicaid,HIPPA. We are all now slaves tot he State.

David Robb's Article includes: "Underlying the discussions, even among the supposedly Constructionist justices was the presumption that the government had whatever powers it chose to apply." He's correct if that sentence is limited to vaccine mandates, and he's probably correct if that sentence is limited to other possible future federal government mandates regarding the spread of lethal viruses, such as quarantines, masks, "social distancing" and many others. There were no Constitutional issues in either of these two cases. There was no dispute that the "separation of powers" doctrine applied, and the 10th Amendment was not within the scope of review the Court allowed. I believe both of these opinions carefully avoided even dicta** about the 10th Amendment because the justices envisioned the possibility of a future virus that could spread like wildfire and have much greater lethality than the COVID, and that such a virus would absolutely necessitate prompt and wide-ranging federal mandates. If the Supreme Court ever holds that the 10th Amendment prevents federal mandates regarding these matters, the Constitution will have to be amended to make such federal mandates Constitutional, and amending the Constitution necessarily takes considerable time. ** Dicta: "Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent." See: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.co

I just don’t see how article 1 section 8 gives the government any such authority. ANY