WASHINGTON, DC – According to reports, the Supreme Court has blocked the Biden administration’s COVID-19 jab and/or testing requirement that was to be imposed upon private businesses by way of weaponizing OSHA to bypass what would typically be accomplished via legislation.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content, Become a PREMIUM USER

The ruling, which was delivered on January 13th, reaffirmed a stay on Biden’s OSHA mandate that was delivered by the Fifth Circuit but later lifted by the Sixth Circuit. Said ruling is likely to enrage the current administration as well as COVID jab advocates.

A copy of SCOTUS’ per curiam observed how this OSHA mandate came to be, acknowledging that it would apply “to roughly 84 million workers” and impose these jab and testing mandates upon “virtually all employers with at least 100 employees.”

The court’s opinion found that “OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress,” and that the filing parties behind the challenge to the mandate proclaimed that “OSHA’s mandate exceeds its statutory authority and is otherwise unlawful.” The court agreed that the “applicants are likely to prevail” in the merits of the arguments and granted “their applications and stay the rule” from the Fifth Circuit.

One area that the court noted in their opinion is the level of intrusion such a mandate imposes on Americans, seemingly without having the authority to roll out the mandate in the manner that it was done.

** Join Our Community **

“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute,” the court said in its ruling. “They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power.’

“It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees.”

While dissenting voices on the Supreme Court proclaimed that such a mandate imposed by OSHA “is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency” the court’s majority disagreed, citing that “a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed” and that such a “mandate on 84 million Americans in response to a worldwide pandemic is simply not ‘part of what the agency was built for.’”

Users on Twitter are already reacting to the decision, with a litany of users demanding that the Supreme Court be expanded in light of the ruling handed down, which has become a typical reaction from the Left whenever SCOTUS delivers a ruling that they don’t agree with.

<Support Our Efforts To Keep Truth Alive>


Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a “vaccine.” According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it’s intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.

Laat een bericht achter! Doe mee, wat vind u (jij) hiervan?

HNMDA UPDATE'S
!!! Blijf op de hoogte

! Meld je aan


.Meld je aan via mail

OF op telegram https://t.me/HNMDA_ALL


- S'morgens & S'avonds 1 nieuwsbrief met de nieuwste berichten
- Weekelijkse nieuwsbrief met alle headlines
- Soms een (verkeerd/ongewenst/test) mailtje, daar werken we aan...


...Anders hoor je het niet