S.C. majority tramples healthcare workers' rights while upholding vaccine mandate
See: 5 Important Quotes From Justice Thomas's Dissent in Biden v. Missouri (townhall.com)
5. "These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal. I respectfully dissent."
The irrefutable fact is, a majority on the Court intentionally trampled upon the fundamental rights of healthcare workers.
The majority trampled upon the inalienable right of people being free to make their own medical decisions and choices. Apparently, the majority were willing to ignore what our Supreme Court has emphatically established regarding indirectly impinging upon the fundamental rights of mankind:
“The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
Additionally, a government act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
So where does this established law leave us regarding the mandate and the healthcare workers fundamental rights?
The fact is, under such circumstances the Court was required, at the very least, to apply “strict scrutiny” to the mandate:
(A) which must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,
(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,
(C) and it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.
The majority on the Court ignored the protection of applying strict scrutiny to the mandate so as to protect the healthcare workers’ fundamental rights, and make necessary accommodations for them, while at the same time working to thread the needle to “achieve the government’s stated purpose”.
We now see a majority on our Supreme Court is not only willing to ignore established law but are likewise willing to trample upon the fundamental rights of American citizens.
BTW the S.C. ruling, along with Thomas' dissent can be found HERE
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
S.C. majority opinion upholding vaccine mandate violates rule of law
.
If anybody is sincerely interested in focusing on the lawlessness which the Majority participated in, I suggest you studying Justice Thomas’ dissent which can be found HERE, part of which reads:
“Under our Constitution, the authority to make laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose Members are elected by the people. Elected representatives solicit the views of their constituents, listen to their complaints and requests, and make a great effort to accommodate their concerns. Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress.”
The fact is, not only did the Majority trample upon healthcare workers’ fundamental rights, as I pointed out in the OP, but it likewise trampled upon our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives are entrusted with the exclusive law-making power.
Keep in mind that Congress may not delegate its power to set standards, principles, or general public policy.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
S.C.'s Majority opinion in vaccine mandate case is judicial tyranny
Keep in mind what Justice Thomas stated in his dissent which can be found HERE
"These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal. I respectfully dissent."
In fact, the majority opinion by giving a green light to an unelected body to exercise executive, judicial and law-making powers meet the very definition of tyranny as stated by James Madision:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.[/I]
