Let me explain it this way. The Federal government can only oversee things so far as the Federal government is concerned.
Unless the Federal government has a contract with a company, they can't mandate shit (well, that's how it should work).
But since OSHA is basically a Federal Regulatory arm of the government, the question arises if any and all companies that follow OSHA guidelines would have to be involved in the mandate, whether or not they were Federally contracted.
Today, the Courts rightly decided that the Federal government would be overstepping its bounds by demanding non-Federal-contracting companies comply with their mandates.
All of Healthcare, by contrast, is required to carry Medicare and Medicaid provisions, so they can't use the same logic as OSHA-regulated industries.
So now, Healthcare has to go through their own cases to figure out if the mandate is legal for them as well. As far as this court is concerned, Healthcare is always sucked in by the Federal Government, and so the mandate applies to them more rigidly than it would for industry. (You have to think in a frame of mind of limiting maximum damages to the grieving party. If the mandate goes out for people not federally contracted, and damages do occur, the court would be to blame for bad judgement, and all hell breaks loose Constitutionally.)
It appears others have already jumped on this and asked the 6th Circuit to fulfill an injunction on the Healthcare aspect of it as well, so it looks like we're gonna be coming back to settle this at a later date.
The courts did as they should in this case.
The only fear is in if they were too heavy-handed with their reasoning and provide Trojan Horse precedent in their statements for other adjacent cases, such as the Abortion cases on the docket.
I think Thomas brought up natural immunity to some affect.
That actually plays into religious and health exemptions.
But, basically, they don't want to muddy the waters with that right now, I'm certain.
I would agree that this needs to be limited to a case of Federal Contract regulations and restrictions.
Taking it to a 1st Amendment argument with protections of Religious and Health beliefs can actually open a can of worms that goes beyond the circumstances of this very specific case.
Some bad precedent can be made here given the wrong context.
In another cases' circumstances, we'd have a much better chance of getting a sweeping and honest ruling on the matter.
For now, we just have to focus on chipping away at one industry at a time. It's the same reason omnibus bills are problematic. Too many tangential arguments outside of their time and place tacked onto something already bloated will only open the door for corruption.
Yes narrow and specific. I hear ya.