The Supreme Court ruling is AVAILABLE HERE.  The court ruled 6-3 to strike down the big issue of the OSHA vaccine mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees. However, the court did allow (5-4) the federal vaccine mandate for federally funded healthcare agencies.  Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh joined the communists to allow the healthcare worker mandate to continue.

“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,” the majority justices wrote in an unsigned opinion.

(Via Associated Press) –  The Supreme Court has stopped the Biden administration from enforcing a requirement that employees at large businesses be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask on the job.  At the same time, the court is allowing the administration to proceed with a vaccine mandate for most health care workers in the U.S.

[…] The court’s conservative majority concluded the administration overstepped its authority by seeking to impose the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees. More than 80 million people would have been affected.

(more…)

One would think a United States Supreme Court hearing containing emergency oral arguments about a federal mandate that impacts more than 100 million Americans in the workforce would mean the justices would be well prepared and full briefed with the latest information.

Alas, in an embarrassing display of judicial outlooks, activism and incompetence, the leftists on the court appeared to just be making stuff up in order to protect the current White House occupant.

Justice Bryer cited 750 million Americans infected yesterday as his reference point to justify his support for Joe Biden.  Unfortunately for justice Bryer there are only 350 million Americans alive.  It would be an ordinarily embarrassing mistake if the issues were not so serious.  However, given the nature of the constitutional issue here, these types of statements only reflect the abject nonsensical nature of a highly politicized supreme court.

Taking Bryer’s ball of insanity across the finish line, Justice Sotomayor, another leftist communist in a black robe, stated: “100,000 kids are currently in the hospital”, FALSE; that the “Omicron variant has been more deadly than Delta,” FALSE; COVID deaths are at an “all time high”, FALSE; and worse yet, “OSHA’s regulatory authority is part of the federal police power,” again FALSE.

Additionally, as to the aspect of the argument surrounding Monday’s federal deadline of mask enforcement for all unvaccinated workers, all of the leftist communists on the court held firm in their belief that masks stop the virus, false.  This issue has even been conceded by officials in the same administration now tasked with enforcing a mask mandate they admit is not based in science.

(more…)

Here’s audio of the oral arguments from the Supreme Court hearing January 7, 2022.

(more…)

BREAKING TONIGHT – The Supreme Court has announced [LINK HERE and LINK HERE] it will hold a special hearing next month to consider challenges to the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for large employers and a separate coronavirus vaccine mandate for health-care workers.

[Order 595 LINK]

Both vaccine mandates have been partially blocked from going into effect by lower courts after challenges from states, business and religious coalitions.

Justices Alito and Kavanaugh both received requests, both affirmed acceptance, and then both cases were consolidated by THE COURT.  The court will hear oral arguments for one hour on Friday January 7, 2022, just before the court begins regularly scheduled oral arguments. [SCOTUS Order Link]

Additionally, earlier today a Florida judge blocked the federal contractor mandate writing in part:

(more…)

When New York’s original vaccine mandate for healthcare workers was announced, it included an exemption for religious reasons.  However, when the administration changed hands, Governor Hochul removed the religious exemption. A lawsuit was filed.  A federal appeals court loss brought the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court requesting an injunction.

Today, the request from the 20 plaintiffs was rejected by the Supreme Court as referred by Justice Sotomayor who covers the New York region.  Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented and would have provide the injunctive relief.  However, Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney-Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal wing and denied the request.  [Full pdf Decision Here]

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in their 14-page dissent that Governor Hochul’s record in the case “practically exudes suspicion of those who hold unpopular religious beliefs,” adding, “That alone is sufficient to render the mandate unconstitutional as applied to these applicants.”

Unfortunately, the alignment of Justices Roberts, Barrett and Kavanaugh with the left wing of the court makes future constitutional appeals around the vaccine mandate look increasingly tenuous.  Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett have been big disappointments.

The U.S. Supreme Court has again overturned the national eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).  In a 6-3 ruling [pdf HERE] the court has rejected arguments that the CDC is permitted to arbitrarily enforce an eviction moratorium.  The high court notes such a government mandate would have to come from the U.S. Congress, not an unelected bureaucratic agency.

This is the second time the eviction moratorium has reached the Supreme Court this year.  In June, the court allowed the prior version of the moratorium to remain in place through July.  However, on August 3rd the CDC arbitrarily renewed it for two months.  This time the court halts it.  “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.”

From the majority ruling: “It is indisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID–19 Delta variant. But our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends. Cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 582, 585–586 (1952) (concluding that even the Government’s belief that its action “was necessary to avert a national catastrophe” could not overcome a lack of congressional authorization). It is up to Congress, not the CDC, to decide whether the public interest merits further action here.” (link)

(more…)

This evening the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas in a lawsuit against the federal government.   [View pdf Here]  The outcome is a ruling requiring the Biden administration to reinstitute the “remain in Mexico” policy put into place during the Trump administration.  The policy requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while they await hearings in the United States.

The ruling was 6-3 with Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer dissenting from the majority opinion.  The ruling is a significant victory for Missouri and Texas, the two states who sued over Biden’s repeal of the policy and won a favorable ruling earlier this month requiring the Biden administration to return to the Trump-era policy.

(more…)

A group of Indiana University students asked the lower courts for help as the university was requiring COVID vaccinations as a condition of returning to school.  The federal district court in Indiana and 7th Circuit court refused to block the vaccination mandate while the students sued the school.  That lead to the students requesting emergency relief from the United States Supreme Court.

This track became the first test of COVID-19 vaccination requirements to reach the Supreme Court.   Justice Amy Coney Barrett handles the region; however, she has rejected the student’s request and will not pass it along to the full court.  [CASE Details Here]

(Source Link)

Obviously Justice Barrett is not as conservative as many supporters believed she was.

During the question and answer session following his remarks yesterday, Joe Biden said something out loud the media are desperately trying to hide.

In this video segment listen carefully to what he says.  As the Supreme Court and lower courts have determined, the CDC has no legal authority to block the rights of property owners from rental income from their tenants.  This is a basic issue in the Constitution about private property rights and the limits of federal government to intervene.

However, think about Joe Biden taking an oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and contrast that oath against these public statements.  In his remarks Biden readily admits that all constitutional scholars have advised the White House that a regulatory eviction moratorium will *NOT* pass constitutional scrutiny.  He openly admits that….

….Then, in the very next sentence, after admitting any effort to initiate or extend a federal eviction moratorium violates the U.S. Constitution, he says he is intentionally directing federal agencies to trigger unconstitutional legal action in an effort to “buy time” and create a de-facto unlawful eviction moratorium.

In essence:…  ‘I know this is unconstitutional; and I know we will lose the constitutional legal argument; but we will do this anyway, because ideology’.  WATCH:

.

Put aside the sympathetic elements for a moment; and think BIG PICTURE.   Think beyond the issue at hand with evictions.  If the installed occupant of the White House can intentionally, and with willful and open intent, violate the United States Constitution; while admitting publicly he is violating the United States Constitution; then what makes you think they will stop at the issue of ‘evictions’.

Either we have a Constitution, or we do not.

Tell me how the willful violation of the Constitution -that is outlined in these public remarks- is not an impeachable offense?

(more…)

A major win for voting integrity laws in the Supreme Court today will enhance the ability of all state legislatures, and further define the parameters and hurdles for lower court activists before they can rule against the rights of states to secure their elections.

The 6-3 ruling (Bryer, Sotomayor, Kagan in dissent) stems from a challenge to the 2016 Arizona election reform that banned ballot harvesting (with some exceptions) and nullified any ballot cast in the wrong precinct.  Democrats and political activists argued the Arizona rules were targeted to restrict minority votes; however, the majority of the court dispatched that argument and went a step further to define how lower courts should approach claims of ‘disparate impact’.

Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the decision [pdf available HERE] and strongly defended the ability of states to put voting rules in place that eliminates voter fraud.  Alito concluded the ruling of the majority by stating courts should look at the reason why states want to impose a particular voting rule. Wanting to prevent voter fraud is, Alito made clear, a “strong and entirely legitimate state interest.”

The result is a complete win for the State of Arizona [Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee] and a strong boost for all state legislatures who are currently in the process of creating legislation to combat the voting fraud created by excessive use of mail-in ballots, ultimately the strategy purposefully behind the creation of COVID-19.

(more…)