The Demagogic Delusional Disinformation Dissent
Or, Supreme Court justices resort to lying repeatedly in defense of the OSHA Mandate
Anyone reading this is undoubtedly already aware of the SCOTUS decisions to stay the OSHA vaccine mandate on private employers but allow the CMS mandate on federally funded healthcare workers to stand. (I must have received an “urgent” update from a few dozen sources at least in my inbox in a span of maybe 30 minutes following the release of their decision.)
This isn’t going to rehash the litany of unmitigated illiteracy that abounded during the oral arguments. I am more concerned with what made it into the dissent, where they are formally codifying as published case law a legal doctrine that going forward will serve as a critical basis along with the court’s decision to uphold the CMS mandate for the severe curtailing of basic human rights and bodily autonomy. Meaning, this isn’t just reckless cowboy antics on the spur of the moment, they thought through what to say here; and this is after they were brutally humiliated because of what they said during the oral arguments. This dissent will be studied in law schools around the country, influencing the next generation of aspiring lawyers and jurists, which is a truly frightening thought.
Anyway, holding true to form, the three radicals on the court teamed up to write a joint dissent declaring their staunch, unflinching opposition to staying the OSHA mandate. From the tone and tenor of the dissent, one can be forgiven for thinking that they are taking a stand against what is a singularly unique danger to society. Now, this is a highly unusual move, as what typically happens is that one justice writes an opinion or dissent that is joined by any other justices who agree. (I very strongly suspect that this was a vanity play, that all three justices wanted their name attached to a dissent they no doubt think is of significant historical import.)
Also true to form, this “epic” dissent ultimately amounts to nothing more than a screeching philippic, and one that got its facts quite scrambled. In fact, it reads more like a religious polemic than a legal document.
It is worthwhile to see for yourself just how divorced from reality and propagandistic a legal opinion written by justices of the supreme court is, because it leaves an impression and imparts a sense of what it is that one will not get from merely hearing or reading a summary of it. Here are some of the choice excerpts from the dissent (page 17) that are, shall we say, irreconcilable with reality:
“There is no ground for disputing”?? Really?? This is asserting an article of religious faith, and a profoundly wrong one at that. One cannot underscore how utterly insane and illiterate such a contention is. OSHA is not even a medical organization. Also, I never heard of an “estimate” that there did not exist any grounds for disputing - an ‘estimate’ by definition means that there is a lack of clarity about the underlying facts or data, because we are missing critical information necessary to fully clarify the matter. Thus this statement refutes itself.
There is no imminent “grave danger” to the “nation’s workforce”, the vast majority of whom are either not at risk from covid or already had covid; and those who didn’t clearly feel that their health interests are better served by not vaccinating. So no, there is no “imminent dangers” whatsoever to the nation’s workforce, only to the political prospects of the Democrats who have put all their eggs (for now) in the covid tyranny basket.
Also, the court is not “contravening clear legal principles” by not allowing an illiterate and dangerous mandate that the majority argues quite rationally is well beyond the scope of any statutory authority granted to OSHA. This is propagandistic demagoguery, declaring the existence of phantom “clear” legal principles in lieu of an even remotely coherent argument. (The supposedly “clear legal principles” that are violated are never made clear either, once you read the majority opinion (and concurrence).)
There is no sane world where the OSHA mandate is in any way “necessary” - or even logically coherent - to lessening the dangers posed by covid. The vaccines now are so bad that being vaccinated roughly doubles your risk of contracting Omicron. Compare this to “[sic] vaccines are highly effective - indeed essential - tools for reducing the risk of transmission [sic]”. This sort of fiction is too debauched even for the most fanciful of tolerable legal fictions. Oh, and all this for Omicron which by and large does not result in significant morbidity let alone mortality.
As to the “meticulous detail”, well, all I can say is that stringing together a “meticulous” assortment of lies is not a positive attribute that enhances the credibility of the lies.
And the part about the unvaccinated being at substantially higher risk compared to their vaccinated peers? Well, this flat-Earther supposition stands in glaring contrast to the basic actuarial data on covid morbidity and mortality — to give a random example, a healthy unvaccinated 42 year old is at substantially less risk than a vaccinated 57 year old with diabetes and hypertension. And those with “natural immunity” are better protected than the double-boosted, mask wearing, face-shield toting OCD fanatic that is the perfect virtuous person in the eyes if this clueless troglodyte triumvirate.
One thing that OSHA definitely cannot be accused of doing is “evaluating the risks… to workers across ALL sectors of the economy”. OSHA literally just lumped everyone together (and then issued a pittance of a few exceptions that everyone knows will never be honored in practice, like the alleged “exceptions” written into every mask mandate for people with acute medical issues directly and immediately significantly impacted by facemasks that were never honored in practice or enforcement). This is nothing more than a flailing attempt to falsely portray OSHA as doing its due diligence in order to pretend away the vast and extremely harmful negative effects of this vile, evil mandate.
Really??? I would really like to know what these “other policies” considered by the esteemed ‘experts’ at OSHA were. I think that the average person would be quite shocked were they ever to discover or observe the behavior - and opinions expressed - of some of these bureaucrats behind closed doors in the privacy of their offices.
‘Encouraging’ seems like way to weak a term. The reality is that what is being implemented practically by employers is a vaccine mandate without any exceptions. “You don’t have to vaccinate, but you’ll just have to test everyday, eat by yourself, can’t come on business trips or get-togethers, will be a social pariah, etc etc etc” is mighty strong coercion. Just imagine if this was about abortion - “you can get an abortion, but you’ll have to eat by yourself, be a social pariah, and take pregnancy tests everyday from now on, etc” - we all know that if a business were to impose this sort of mandate on their employees, these same justices would be screeching to the rafters in far stronger language how this is the biggest evil of all time and certainly denying any semblance of ‘choice’ in the matter.
Accountability. Yeah right. This is epic gaslighting to be sure. We all know that there will be absolutely zero meaningful accountability for any covid policy for the bureaucrats who write and implement them, no matter how unpopular, evil, or worse. If there was, they wouldn’t have made the mandate in the first place. Furthermore, ‘accountability’ to a mob is not a virtue - imagine trying this argument on segregation, “segregation laws or policies are ultimately accountable through the president to elections” - that is not an excuse for allowing a moral abomination against a minority of the population.
Hopefully, this case - the spectacle of the oral arguments (including the pathetic showing by the lawyers arguing against the mandates where they conceded every false premise about the “science” relating to covid and the vaccines), the majority opinion to uphold the CMS mandate, and this dissent - will at least help to “red-pill” people to the sad but undeniably true political reality that half of the country does not have any tangible political representation whatsoever in the federal government. At a minimum, it is a violation of fundamental democratic principles for society to be at the mercy of black-robed activists without any fealty to the constitution, individual rights, or the rule of law.
"Troglodyte triumvirate "...🤣👍
moral abomination.... I thought the affordable care act was that at the time... forcing people to buy a private product and penalizing them if they didnt. But now the scotus has descended from the 7th to the 6th circle of hell... allowing coerced injections of experimental drugs. Scotus is the most failed institution in America.