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.
As TechnoFog accurately noted in his immediate reaction: “It’s hard to convey the disrespect showed by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer today. 100 million Americans are affected by the Biden COVID mandates. And these Justices showed up unprepared, inventing COVID numbers to support whatever legal conclusion they’ve already reached.” Techno is unfortunately accurately stating the obvious.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a diabetic since childhood, didn’t even appear in the courtroom, choosing to remain in her office at the court and take part remotely. Two lawyers, representing Ohio and Louisiana, argued by telephone after recent positive Covid-19 tests.
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices seemed divided during an oral argument hearing on Friday as plaintiffs challenged President Joe Biden’s vaccine-or-test mandate, just days before it is slated to take effect for workplaces with 100 or more employees.
The first attorney to speak Friday was Scott Keller, representing the National Federation of Independent Business that is challenging the mandate enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Keller asked the justices to “immediately stay” the agency’s Emergency Temporary Standard before Monday.
Justice Clarence Thomas opened by asking: “How are we to decide when an emergency temporary standard or emergency temporary standards are necessary?”
The liberal-minded justices primarily questioned the legitimacy of arguments against the mandate, citing that the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect hospital capacities. They also noted the inherent ease of spread of COVID-19 among peers. Meanwhile, the majority of conservative-leaning justices raised more skepticism about OSHA’s ability to issue a nationwide vaccine-or-test mandate. (more)
There is a glimmer of hope, as noted by the Associated Press: “The Covid circumstances did not appear to outweigh the views of the court’s six conservatives that the administration overstepped its authority in its vaccine-or-testing requirement for businesses with at least 100 employees.
“This is something the federal government has never done before,” the chief justice, John Roberts, said, casting doubt on the administration’s argument that a half-century established law, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, confers such broad authority.”
Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Coney-Barrett, probably hold the key to the outcome in both cases (mask and vaccine mandate). Unfortunately, all three have been receptive to state-level vaccine requirements in preceding cases. Whether they will support the first ever federal vaccine mandate, is yet to be determined.
Ugh.