Connect with us

World

Supreme Court Blocks Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Private Employers

Published

on

Supreme Court protest

The Trump Supreme Court finally worked exactly the way it was designed to work on Thursday, when it struck a massive blow for freedom in ordering a stay on Joe Biden’s handlers’ authoritarian and destructive vaccine mandate for private employers with more than 100 employees. The Court, again oddly inconsistent as it has often been since Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett took their seats, at the same time upheld the mandate for health care workers. Still, the high court’s refusal to rubber-stamp Biden’s mandate for employers is yet another failure for this disastrous administration, and a major victory for the defenders of individual freedom who have been fighting the mandates from the beginning.

The private employer mandate, which was imposed through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), was rejected on a 6-3 vote, with Trump’s three new justices forming the margin of victory. The Court’s order stated with admirable common sense and restraint that “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.”

That is absolutely true, and is a refreshing departure from the seemingly inexorable advance of government power over the lives of Americans. It is a sharp rebuke to the nanny state mentality that has been dominant far too long, and that looks to government to take care of all our needs and wants, and to protect us from all dangers.

The order adds: “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”

Advertisement

Justice Gorsuch added more regarding the restriction of the powers of government agencies: “The central question we face today is: Who decides? No one doubts that the COVID–19 pandemic has posed challenges for every American. Or that our state, local, and national governments all have roles to play in combating the disease. The only question is whether an administrative agency in Washington, one charged with overseeing workplace safety, may mandate the vaccination or regular testing of 84 million people. Or whether, as 27 States before us submit, that work belongs to state and local governments across the country and the people’s elected representatives in Congress. This Court is not a public health authority. But it is charged with resolving disputes about which authorities possess the power to make the laws that govern us under the Constitution and the laws of the land.”

Gorsuch added: “The federal government’s powers, however, are not general but limited and divided. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). Not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other. It must also act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers. And when it comes to that obligation, this Court has established at least one firm rule: ‘We expect Congress to speak clearly’ if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions ‘of vast economic and political significance.’”

Imagine: in 2021, the Supreme Court actually noting that a government agency had exceeded the scope of its responsibilities. It’s practically unheard-of since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when the leviathan federal government began its out-of-control growth, but here it is.

Jeremy Boreing says in the Daily Wire that “today is a day of celebration,” and it certainly is. We have Donald J. Trump to thank for it. However, the struggle to defend our Constitutional rights is not even close to over. This is such a lawless administration that it may ignore the Court’s ruling and call upon employers to enforce the vaccine mandate anyway, and could even provide various carrots and sticks to compel them to do so. Nevertheless, if Biden’s handlers defy the Court, they’re likely to drive Old Joe’s approval ratings even lower than they are now, and further delegitimize this administration in the eyes of American citizens. Would they risk a thing? Probably.

Advertisement

World

PA Court Finds State’s “Universal Mail-In Voting Act 77” Unconstitutional

Published

on

pa mail in ruling 01

A big new ruling just came out of Pennsylvania, where a state court ruled that PA’s “Mail-in Voting Act 77” was unconstitutional.

***FOLLOW US ON RUMBLE***

Gee, that would’ve been nice to know about a year ago, right?

Advertisement

You may recall the TIME Magazine bombshell piece that made a lot of waves for revealing this was how they “fortified” the election — by changing the laws without actually making them a “law.”

Tricky move. 

Hard to call it “cheating” when the state’s congressional representatives implemented it, right? It looks legit and seems so “official” to people when it’s done that way.

Well, it was a good cover, as we can clearly and sadly see.

Advertisement

MORE NEWS: [VIDEO] Cops Form Jaw-Dropping “Sea of Blue” Straight Down 5th Ave in New York City

Fox 43 reported that a statewide court says Pennsylvania’s expansive two-year-old mail-in voting law is unconstitutional, agreeing with challenges by Republicans who soured on mail-in voting after then-President Donald Trump began baselessly attacking it as rife with fraud in 2020′s campaign.

According to a Commonwealth Court filing released Friday, the court ruled that Act 77, allowing residents to vote by mail in Pennsylvania, violates Article VII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania constitution.

Advertisement
1flagtrump

***FOLLOW US ON CLOUDHUB***

The Commonwealth Court denied the Pa. Department of State acting secretary’s application for summary relief.
In the ruling, Commonwealth Court President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt wrote, “If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end Article VII, Section 1 requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted. But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation allowing no-excuse mail-in voting can be ‘placed upon our statute books.’”

Friday’s decision by a five-judge Commonwealth Court panel could be put on hold immediately by an appeal from Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration to the state Supreme Court.
The decision throws the state’s voting laws into doubt in a big election year.
The three Republican judges agreed with Republican challengers.

The two Democrats on the panel dissented.

Advertisement

****FOLLOW US ON TELEGRAM***

I am sure Dems will challenge this all the way up to the state’s Supreme Court.

10

adfree

DEAR MEMBERS,
Are you sick of seeing ads? Well then it’s time to get rid of them! WayneDupree.com is proud to offer a PREMIUM VIP MEMBERSHIP that eliminates ads and gives you the BEST browsing experience.

SIGN UP HERE and join us!
Advertisement

Follow Wayne on Rumble!

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Afghanistan: 300 Muslim men protest, chanting ‘We want Sharia’ and ‘we want the hijab, even if we die for it’

Published

on

We want the Islamic hijab in Afghanistan

They won’t be doing the dying. The Muslim women who refuse to wear it will be taking care of that.

“Taliban stage protest denouncing ‘disrespect’ to the hijab,” AFP, January 21, 2022:

Advertisement

The Taliban stage a demonstration with around 300 men, chanting “We want Sharia law” and “We want the hijab, even if we die for it”. The crowd accuses women’s rights activists who have taken to the streets in recent weeks of being hired “mercenaries”, especially after they stamped on a burqa during a recent protest.

Continue Reading