• July 24, 2024

Amy Coney Barrett Just Asked Something We All Should Be Asking…

Biden Regime’s tyrannical and unconstitutional vaccine mandates affected the lives of many Americans especially their jobs.

And whoever, go against Biden will face public humiliation and scrutiny – worst you’ll be restricted from your own personal rights and government benefits.

Clearly, Biden’s regime wants total control in preparation for the 2022 election.

But American people are fed up with this COVID fear porn propaganda, and now they are challenging Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Friday in two sets of challenges to the Biden Regime’s authoritarian way of combating the COVID-19 pandemic. A pivotal case that will determine whether the federal government has the legal authority to require businesses to mandate a COVID-19 vaccine for their employees, and one of the attorneys arguing against that mandate caught the virus himself. 

According to SCOTUS Blog report:

Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. Solicitor General who is arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, maintains that OSHA is simply exercising “the power that Congress gave it under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which directs OSHA to issue emergency rules when it determines that a rule is ‘necessary’ to protect employees from a ‘grave danger’ from exposure to ‘physically harmful’ ‘agents’/or ‘new hazards” because COVID-19 meets those comments and threatens unvaccinated workers.

SCOTUS Blog added:

As for why OSHA can enact this without comment from Congress, OSHA’s “emergency rules can go into effect immediately, without the notice-and-comment procedures normally required for agency rulemaking.” However, Barrett pressured pro-mandate attorneys as to when the emergency would end so that Congress could formally weigh in on the OSHA ruling.

Below is the partial Transcript:

Coney Barrett asked:

“When does the emergency end? I mean, a lot of this argument has been about Congress’s failure to act. Two years from now, do we have any reason to think that COVID will be gone or that new variants might not be emerging?” 

“And when, when must OSHA actually resort to its regular authority and go through notice and comment and not simply be kind of doing it in this quick way, which doesn’t afford people, the voice in the process that there are otherwise entitled to?”

Prelogar then responded:

“So I think if I could respond to that in a few different ways. Congress defined when the emergency exists, it labeled this an emergency temporary standard, but it’s dictated by the statutory requirements so there has to be a grave danger from a physically harmful agent or a new hazard, and the measures have to be necessary to protect against that danger. And we don’t think that there’s an additional free-floating requirement about the emergency status that has to be taken into account.”

Coney Barrett asked again:

“So it could be an emergency two more years from now?” 

Prelogar answered:

“Well, I certainly take the point that the emergency can be of substantial duration. Of course, this is not a way to, to bypass, notice and comment permanently. Congress, further specify that the agency is expected to conduct a rule-making process over six months And that’s why the agency estimated the lives saved, the hospitalizations prevented over the six-month life of the rule.”

Coney Barrett then pushed back:

“Sure, but I was envisioning a new rule. Two years from now, OSHA might two years from now adopt something that’s different from this vaccine or mask and test mandate. I’m just talking about the limits more generally on OSHA’s power under the ETS provision.”

Prelogar said, before adding that issuing a stay on the current order would harm Americans:

“The limits I think are the ones written into the statute. And so if you want to project out two years from now, I think it’s entirely possible of course, that the trajectory of the pandemic will change. I certainly hope so. And in that case, OSHA, I think would have to, if it wanted to regulate again, cross that the high burden of showing a grave danger.” 

Then, former Texas solicitor general Scott Keller arguing on behalf of the anti-mandate plaintiffs, responded to Prelogar’s argument by saying:

“It’s unreasonable to assume that Congress gave OSHA unprecedented power over American industry and the emergency power is also narrowly circumscribed yet here OSHA has never, before done mandated vaccines or widespread testing, much less overall industries or on an emergency basis.” 

Keller claimed regarding why his side is constitutionally correct:

“So whether we’re talking about the agency’s failure to explain, whether we’re talking about the statutory term necessary, whether we’re talking about how this has to be tethered to the workplace, under the major questions doctrine — under any one of those theories, we are likely to succeed on the merits.” 

He added:

“And finally, when it comes to the public interest, as this court just recognized a few months ago. It is undisputable that the public has a strong interest in combating the spread of the COVID-19 Delta variant but our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”

And by Monday, the court is expected to issue a stay on the mandate or rule whether or not the OSHA rule is constitutional, as requested by the anti-mandate plaintiffs.

Sources: DailyWire,  SCOTUS Blog

The Daily Allegiant