Design a site like this with
Get started

VIDEO Conservatives Rejoice After Supreme Court Strikes Down OSHA’s Vaccine Mandate – WH Calls on Businesses to Ignore Supreme Court Decision

VIDEO Conservatives Rejoice After Supreme Court Strikes Down OSHA’s Vaccine Mandate: ‘A Win for the Constitution’ – WH Calls on Businesses to Ignore Supreme Court Decision

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 01: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett (L) shakes hands with Chief Justice John Roberts on the plaza in front of the west side of the Supreme Court following her investiture ceremony on October 01, 2021 in Washington, DC. Barrett has been a member …
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

HANNAH BLEAU 13 Jan 2022

Conservatives rejoiced after the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Biden’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) vaccine mandate affecting over 84 million American workers, deeming it a “win for the Constitution.”

In a 6-3 decision, the Court blocked Biden’s OSHA vaccine mandate, which would have required employers with 100 or more employees to either mandate the vaccine or implement rigorous testing requirements. Notably, under OSHA’s rule, the burden of the cost of testing would remain on the employee, effectively amounting to a work tax. However, the court upheld the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine mandate 5-4, although it explicitly acknowledged that the CMS mandate exempts employees who object to the vaccine for religious or medical reasons.

Conservatives celebrated the OSHA ruling, particularly, following the verdict.

Ambassador Ken Blackwell, who is now a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, celebrated the OSHA decision, calling it a “constitutional smack-down of Biden’s imperial power grab.” He criticized the CMS decision, but added, “Most people who object to the vaccine do so for religious or medical reasons, so the Supreme Court’s affirming that those people are exempt from the CMS mandate is a silver lining here.”

“It took the Supreme Court to set the record straight for the Biden Administration,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) said following the ruling, deeming it a “win for the Constitution.”

“It’s also a win for personal liberties and our economy, which has been ravaged by Joe Biden’s inflation and supply chain crises,” he said:

“The Supreme Court just BLOCKED the Biden admin’s heavy-handed attempt to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine on private employers,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said.

“They agree—The Biden administration has gone too far and it’s time for them to stop,” he declared:

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) deemed the Court’s OSHA ruling a “BIG win for small businesses, workers and freedom,” although he expressed disappointment in the CMS verdict:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling sends a clear message: Biden is not a king & his gross overreaches of federal power will not be tolerated,” Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said in reaction to the news.

“I had COVID & got the vaccine, but I will NEVER support a vaccine mandate that bullies hardworking Americans & kills jobs,” he added

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) also celebrated the Court’s OSHA decision and promised to “keep fighting for our healthcare heroes who were ignored today.”

“You continue to SAVE LIVES. We won’t give up!” he exclaimed:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also deemed the OSHA ruling a “huge win for freedom,” as others — both politicians and political figures — offered similar sentiments:

Biden released a statement after the ruling, expressing disappointment in the Court’s decision to block the OSHA mandate, deeming the requirements a “very modest burden.” However, he celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the CMS mandate:

As a result of the Court’s decision, it is now up to States and individual employers to determine whether to make their workplaces as safe as possible for employees, and whether their businesses will be safe for consumers during this pandemic by requiring employees to take the simple and effective step of getting vaccinated.

“The Court has ruled that my administration cannot use the authority granted to it by Congress to require this measure, but that does not stop me from using my voice as President to advocate for employers to do the right thing to protect Americans’ health and economy,” he added, calling on businesses to “immediately join those who have already stepped up – including one third of Fortune 100 companies – and institute vaccination requirements to protect their workers, customers, and communities.”

The applications are NFIB v. OSHA, No. 21A244 at the Supreme Court of the United States, and Biden v. Missouri, No. 21A240 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

White House Calls on Businesses to Ignore Supreme Court Decision on Vaccination and Force the Vaccine Mandate Regardless of Constitutional Merit

January 13, 2022 

Not to be deterred by such pesky inconveniences as a Supreme Court decision, immediately after the high court ruled the vaccine mandate was unconstitutional federal overreach – the White House told employers to enforce the vaccine mandate anyway.

White House Spokesperson Jennifer Psaki said the Biden administration would “not be deterred” by the Supreme Court decision, and all employers should immediately continue to “initiate vaccination requirements.”  WATCH:


Appeals court rules ban on ‘conversion therapy’ unconstitutional

‘This case is the beginning of the end’ for similar laws

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that ordinances in Florida banning the licensed counseling of people with unwanted same-sex attractions are unconstitutional violations of the freedom of speech.

“We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny,” the ruling from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The decision was the first from a federal appeals court laws against so-called “conversion therapy” – a term rejected by proponents – since a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In NIFLA v. Becerra, the high court ruled the government cannot force an individual or organization to express a message chosen by the government.

The current case, Otto, et al v. City of Boca Raton, found that bans by Boca Raton and Palm Beach County violate the Constitution.

The case was fought by Liberty Counsel, which represents Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton and their minor clients.

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver said the ruling sets a precedent.

“This case is the beginning of the end of similar unconstitutional counseling bans around the country,” he said.

The licensed therapists say they provide lifesaving counseling to minors who want to conform their attractions, behaviors and gender identities to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Under the laws struck down by the 11th Circuit, a counselor could encourage a client to take life-altering hormone drugs or undergo invasive surgery to remove healthy body parts. But a counselor was barred from helping a client who seeks to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.

The 2-1 decision from Judge Britt Grant, who was joined by Judge Barbara Lagoa, said the therapy is controversial, but as it is only “talk,” it is protected.

The dissent cited various left-leaning medical associations that claim such talk therapy is damaging to children.

The court said: “Nor can the local governments evade the First Amendment’s ordinary presumption against content-based speech restrictions by saying that the plaintiffs’ speech is actually conduct. We can understand why they would make this claim; if the ordinances restricted only non-expressive conduct, and not speech, then they would not implicate the First Amendment at all. Our Court, though, has already rejected the practice of relabeling controversial speech as conduct. In a case quite similar to this one, we laid down an important marker: ‘the enterprise of labeling certain verbal or written communications ‘speech’ and others ‘conduct’ is unprincipled and susceptible to manipulation/'”

Under such ordinances, which have been implemented across the nation, it “only matters that some words about sexuality and gender are allowed, and others are not,” the court said.

“Speech does not need to be popular in order to be allowed. The First Amendment exists precisely so that speakers with unpopular ideas do not have to lobby the government for permission before they speak,” the opinion said.

“The local governments are not entirely wrong when they characterize speech-based SOCE as a course of conduct. SOCE, after all, is a therapy, and plaintiffs say they want to ‘engage’ in it. But plaintiffs have the better of the argument. What the governments call a ‘medical procedure’ consists—entirely—of words. As the district court itself recognized, plaintiffs’ therapy ‘is not just carried out in part through speech: the treatment provided by Drs. Otto and Hamilton is entirely speech.’ If SOCE is conduct, the same could be said of teaching or protesting—both are activities, after all. Debating? Also an activity. Book clubs? Same answer. But the law does not require us to flip back and forth between perspectives until our eyes hurt.”

%d bloggers like this: