Supreme Court Vax Mandate “Decision” Is a Disgrace!

Many Americans are heaving a huge sigh of relief after last week’s six to three Supreme Court decision to curtail Biden Cabal vaccine mandates. At first glance, it may seem that the rights and freedoms of the people are safe from governmental overreach. Unfortunately, this notion is grossly mistaken, and Americans should not let down their guard at this critical juncture. Too much is at stake, and the left knows it has many other cards to play. The potential for a huge blindside attack on our liberty still exists.

For starters, it is worth considering just how grotesquely out of proportion the Nation’s current perception of the Court has become. Between the presentation of oral arguments and the decision being handed down several days later, many across the land sat around like expectant children, anxiously waiting to know whether or not they would be given permission to live as Americans. This alone reflects a Court that now vastly exceeds its proper role.

In the eyes of the Founders, the Supreme Court would serve the purpose of upholding the principles enshrined in the Constitution, by deciding on the legitimacy of duly instituted legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the Chief Executive. Its entire premise for upholding or striking down said laws was whether or not they functioned within the framework of our National Charter. Yet the current operation of the Court is a dangerous caricature of that solemn duty, no less than the regular over-reaches and abuses of power by the other two branches. In a very real sense, nobody in high office is actually looking out for American citizens or their ability to function as a free people.

From the words of the “Justices” during oral arguments, as well as the opinions some expressed in the aftermath of the case, it is clear that theirs was not a “constitutional,” but a “medical” decision. Nowhere in the Constitution is such governmental authority implied or granted in any manner. It should also be self-evident that America does not have or need a “national doctor” with legislative authority. For anyone attempting to claim the Surgeon General as such, even a junior high civics class should give sufficient instruction that the role of that office is advisory, and has no power to issue legally binding edicts.

As to the actual nature of the decision itself, Americans were once again denied any ruling from the Court that might be held out as a defining guidepost for future laws and cases. Going back several years, the Court has refused to actually reaffirm any Constitutional principle when the effect might be the eradication of anti-Constitution legislation. Rather, the Court offers opinions specific to the case at hand, while very deliberately leaving the door open for more questions and more future litigation.

The “good news,” at least in the short term, is that the vax mandates for businesses of one hundred or more people have been nixed. But the reasons given stemmed from the nature of the virus (as presumed by the court), to the negative repercussions that such a decision might have on employers and employees. It’s as if somebody decided, at some point, that a second “legislative/executive” branch might be desirable to weigh the pros and cons of the actions of the other two branches on their situational merit. So let “Dr. Roberts” and “Dr. Sotomayor” have their say against Dr. Fauci.

An absurd premise, to be sure. Yet in its shadow, a sinister Pandora’s Box lurks, since the vax mandates for medical workers remained largely intact. Again, no Constitutional precept delineates between the self-evident and unalienable rights of healthcare workers as opposed to other workers in our Nation. So this determination was handed down strictly on the basis of the opinions and “medical knowledge” of the members of the Court. Moreover, leaving a mandate in place in one area of American society means that depending on how the Court perceives the ebb and flow of the “pandemic,” it can reassert mandates on any other sector of private enterprise whenever it so chooses.

So all it will take is for stridently exaggerated claims of new covid cases to be reported (And who would ever suspect either the leftist Democrats or their Fake News lackeys to do such a thing?), and the mechanism is already in place to reassert and even expand the reach of the mandates. That this looming can of worms survived within the Court’s ruling was no accident.

Many sincere conservatives look with great anticipation to the Court’s upcoming judgment on Texas pro-life legislation, hoping it will be the much needed reversal of the abominable “Roe v. Wade” decision of 1973. But while such a determination would be the right and proper thing to do, it is more likely that the Court will once again attempt to “strike a balance” between the two sides, on a fundamental issue of right and wrong in which absolutely no common ground exists between the two camps.

Originally, the Court was established as a means of checking the other two branches in such a manner that the Constitution, our founding National covenant, would retain its integrity. It was never intended to operate as a gang of carpet bagging lawyers who’s purpose and expertise would be to look for loopholes in the contract.

The Eighteenth Century philosopher Joseph de Maistre asserted that “every country has the government it deserves.” If the people of a nation were willing to settle for corruption and despotism in their midst, that was eventually what they would have. As the lunacy of the illegitimate Biden Cabal continues to wreak havoc on our Nation, trampling basic human rights and devastating the once thriving economy, Americans have a choice of either standing up to it, or standing down, and accepting its policy disasters and lies as their inescapable fate.

Expecting a thoroughly compromised Supreme Court (Think: John Roberts “inexplicably” upholding Obamacare) to make everything right is akin to waiting for any of the others who made the mess to suddenly fix it. Holding out such hope would be an exercise in futility. But that is precisely the response from “We the People” on which the left is counting.

Bio

Christopher G. Adamo is a lifelong conservative from the American Heartland. He has been involved in grassroots and state-level politics for many years, seeking to restore and uphold the Judeo-Christian principles on which our Nation was founded. His book, “Rules for Defeating Radicals,” is the “Go To” guide for effectively confronting and overcoming the dirty tricks of the political left. It is available at Amazon.

Image by Joe Ravi, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.