Since the SCOTUS have now set precedent on removing the mandate on private businesses a further court case can now be launched for removal of the mandate for medical workers. At least that’s my understanding.
Case No. 1: The Court has ruled that the Federal Government can't enforce mandates through OSHA on companies that aren't Federally Contracted.
That means they can still screw around with companies that ARE Federally Contracted. So that's Case No. 2, which this case can provide precedent for. We would then get a ruling to decide if the Federal Government has the authority to medically mandate the companies that ARE contracting with them, aside from an OSHA strong-arm approach.
Then Case No. 3 would be determining if the Federal Government can enforce Medical Mandates for private companies at all, especially considering the nature of the Mandate is to enforce a purely experimental medical procedure on people who by-and-large aren't at risk.
Which could lead into a total reduction in powers for ALL Federal Regulatory agencies, up to and including the FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOL, etc. It could potentially call into question if regulations should be proactive or reactive.
That would also call into question if companies can be considered private at all if their existence relies on following strict Federal regulations. If they cannot operate outside the control of the Federal government, are they really private at all?
Then Case No. 4 would tackle any entities that are subsidized by the Federal Government. Do they have to follow mandates, even though they technically aren't Federally Contracted to do jack? Do the subsidies go bye bye if they don't cooperate with Federal Regulations? If not, then can that precedent be made for ALL regulations? Is the Federal Government even allowed to provide subsidies, since we can interpret them as preferential treatment to some companies/services?
Then Case No. 5 would tie into Abortion, because they get Federal Subsidies through indirect means.
If precedent is set that says the Fed CAN enforce medical procedures on people, contracted through the Fed or not, then they can declare Abortion mandates for women who are in the work force. BIG, BAD TIMES! Everyone loses, and we enter a child-sacrifice dystopia.
This is less worrisome with this ruling because they just declared that the Fed CANNOT mandate non-contracting entities to follow the rules by using the strong-arm of OSHA. So, this crises looks to be averted for now.
Keep in mind what a mandate is. Mandates only become effective law if everyone is already following them. They are guidelines, and nothing more. You should not ever be sued, denied employment, or disenfranchised on account of your refusal of a mere guideline. The Government shouldn't be able to fire people working at a private business because they won't shave their mustaches, for instance. That's a company's right to set policy on.
If a company doesn't want you to have a mustache, then they have that right as a part of their dress code.
However, if every company is already enforcing that guideline, then they can codify it into law retro-actively with little resistance. Police officers fighting to have facial hair comes to mind.
This is why they are trying so hard to get people to comply and fudging the numbers on who is vax'd vs unvax'd. If they can successfully claim 90% or more are vaccinated, they can rule that the mandate might as well be law anyway.
At the very least, this sets precedent that more than a slim minority are opposed to these mandates, which means they shouldn't be set in law in any capacity. Now comes the question of private companies' enforcement and who gets sued if a company follows CDC/FDA guidelines and an employee gets seriously maimed on account of the vaccines. Does the CDC/FDA get sued? The Company? The Federal Government as a whole for their propaganda campaign?
It's not that they upheld the mandate for healthcare workers, they just separated it from this case. They want to keep OSHA-centric decisions out of the medical industry.
They could have upheld the injunction in the mean time, so I am peeved at that. People will die or be withheld services in the short term, but we will see what happens next week when the lawyers refile the injunction papers.
Look at it this way, they basically kept the door open for another case to come in and deal with the medical side of things at a later date. This case didn't have enough meat to present a case against medical tyranny.
Keep your eyes on the prize and your head in the ring. We have no reason to doom just yet.
Since the SCOTUS have now set precedent on removing the mandate on private businesses a further court case can now be launched for removal of the mandate for medical workers. At least that’s my understanding.
Not entirely, but you're close.
Case No. 1: The Court has ruled that the Federal Government can't enforce mandates through OSHA on companies that aren't Federally Contracted.
That means they can still screw around with companies that ARE Federally Contracted. So that's Case No. 2, which this case can provide precedent for. We would then get a ruling to decide if the Federal Government has the authority to medically mandate the companies that ARE contracting with them, aside from an OSHA strong-arm approach.
Then Case No. 3 would be determining if the Federal Government can enforce Medical Mandates for private companies at all, especially considering the nature of the Mandate is to enforce a purely experimental medical procedure on people who by-and-large aren't at risk.
Which could lead into a total reduction in powers for ALL Federal Regulatory agencies, up to and including the FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOL, etc. It could potentially call into question if regulations should be proactive or reactive.
That would also call into question if companies can be considered private at all if their existence relies on following strict Federal regulations. If they cannot operate outside the control of the Federal government, are they really private at all?
Then Case No. 4 would tackle any entities that are subsidized by the Federal Government. Do they have to follow mandates, even though they technically aren't Federally Contracted to do jack? Do the subsidies go bye bye if they don't cooperate with Federal Regulations? If not, then can that precedent be made for ALL regulations? Is the Federal Government even allowed to provide subsidies, since we can interpret them as preferential treatment to some companies/services?
Then Case No. 5 would tie into Abortion, because they get Federal Subsidies through indirect means.
If precedent is set that says the Fed CAN enforce medical procedures on people, contracted through the Fed or not, then they can declare Abortion mandates for women who are in the work force. BIG, BAD TIMES! Everyone loses, and we enter a child-sacrifice dystopia.
This is less worrisome with this ruling because they just declared that the Fed CANNOT mandate non-contracting entities to follow the rules by using the strong-arm of OSHA. So, this crises looks to be averted for now.
Keep in mind what a mandate is. Mandates only become effective law if everyone is already following them. They are guidelines, and nothing more. You should not ever be sued, denied employment, or disenfranchised on account of your refusal of a mere guideline. The Government shouldn't be able to fire people working at a private business because they won't shave their mustaches, for instance. That's a company's right to set policy on.
If a company doesn't want you to have a mustache, then they have that right as a part of their dress code.
However, if every company is already enforcing that guideline, then they can codify it into law retro-actively with little resistance. Police officers fighting to have facial hair comes to mind.
This is why they are trying so hard to get people to comply and fudging the numbers on who is vax'd vs unvax'd. If they can successfully claim 90% or more are vaccinated, they can rule that the mandate might as well be law anyway.
At the very least, this sets precedent that more than a slim minority are opposed to these mandates, which means they shouldn't be set in law in any capacity. Now comes the question of private companies' enforcement and who gets sued if a company follows CDC/FDA guidelines and an employee gets seriously maimed on account of the vaccines. Does the CDC/FDA get sued? The Company? The Federal Government as a whole for their propaganda campaign?
Muddy waters ahead...
Thank you.
Yep, and by extension, the gov will be able to mandate all entities that have any government funding. Burn it all down.
The fight isn't over yet.
It's not that they upheld the mandate for healthcare workers, they just separated it from this case. They want to keep OSHA-centric decisions out of the medical industry.
They could have upheld the injunction in the mean time, so I am peeved at that. People will die or be withheld services in the short term, but we will see what happens next week when the lawyers refile the injunction papers.
Look at it this way, they basically kept the door open for another case to come in and deal with the medical side of things at a later date. This case didn't have enough meat to present a case against medical tyranny.
Keep your eyes on the prize and your head in the ring. We have no reason to doom just yet.