Two women on 6th Circuit vote to lift 5th Circuit's injunction halting porridge-brain's vax-or-be-fired ORDER

How much more will it take before Americans realize the fix is in about the vax?  That porridge-brain's "vax or be fired" ORDER will be upheld by the supreme court, regardless of religious objections or having recovered from duh virus, or the dangers of the jab, or the fact that the "vaccine" didn't actually qualify as a vaccine until the CDC changed the definition.

Let me explain:  A few weeks ago the fairly conservative 5th circuit issued an injunction ordering a pause in implementing the "vax mandate."  Then, with literally hundreds of lawsuits pending all over the country, the Supreme Court [spit!] roused itself from check-cashing to bleat that all such cases must be consolidated, and heard by...a different circuit court of appeals.

So the first thing that strikes you about this is, Why not leave the cases in the court that had already had the first hearing on 'em?

Why indeed.  

There was no good reason to pull the case from the first court to be familiar with it, so it seems pretty obvious that the "justices" didn't like the decision by the 5th.  So they *supposedly* conducted a random drawing and pulled out the 6th circuit.

Now, I've been a Supreme Court watcher for 30 years.  Anyone who thinks the SC is neutral and upholds the Constitution is an idiot.  At least two of the "justices" appear to be totally corrupt, and several more have shown their willingness to trash the Constitution's limits on government power to allow the Democrat party to do whatever it wants.

Think I'm mistaken?  Consider this: Surely y'all know that courts are not supposed to *write* laws.  That power rests solely with congress.  The job of the judiciary is just to *interpret* laws in accordance with the Supreme Law of the land, and if a law violates the Constitution, to overturn it--in which case congress or a state legislature can remove the unconstitutional part and try again.

Until a few years ago all judges understood that role.  But a few years ago the court heard a solid case seeking to overturn Obamacare, on the ground that the Constitution didn't give the federal gruberment the authority to force citizens to buy a product--including health insurance (the "individual mandate").  Obama's "solicitors" argued repeatedly that the "individual mandate"--the key question in the case--was NOT a tax. But astonishingly, despite the Obama regime claiming the mandate was NOT a tax, John Roberts ruled that it WAS a tax, which allowed the court to rule 5-4 that Obamacare was legal.  

Logic and law thrown out to support a Democrat goal.

Or consider how the supreme court ruled in "Kelo v. City of New London."

Oh wait...you never heard of that case, eh?  Fair enough.  In fairness, you were too busy raising your kids or working to keep food on the table and pay your taxes to worry about such trivia, so read on:

New London, Connecticut, is a small town with a great location on Long Island Sound. In 1998 a big company approached the city council with a proposal to build a big research facility on the waterfront.  The prospect of huge new tax revenue had the city council drooling, and they quickly created a "development corporation" to help the big company get the land for the big job-creating, tax-producing facility it wanted.

The council gave this "development corporation" the power of eminent domain, which the Constitution recognizes as the power of government to condemn and essentially take private property (with "fair compensation") to build roads or similar items that benefit every citizen.  But in this case the question was, how does condemning private property--over 100 homes--to benefit a corporation benefit every citizen?

See, the council's "development corporation" had quickly gotten greedy, and instead of just condemning enough land to satisfy the big company, they decided to condemn and take over far more acreage, to create an office park, parking lots and a lot of...vague, unspecified things.  So the city filed condemnation proceedings on over 100 homes–some of which had been in the owners' families for over a century--covering a staggering 90 acres.  (The company's planned "research center would only have needed two or three acres.)

Several homeowners sued to block the forced sale.

Lower courts found for the city, and the case ended up at the U.S. supreme court.  The question was whether the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment permitted a city to condemn private property and then turn it over to a private developer.  Yep, the "development corporation" planned to deed the condemned private property to a private developer, thus enriching the developer at the expense of the homeowners.  All totally legit, of course.  No bribery or brother-in-law deals at all.  Nope.

Of course the other intended beneficiary was the big company proposing to build the big research center.  It would get prime waterfront real estate at a bargain price.

The company, by the way, was Pfizer.

The U.S. supreme court ruled for the city, for Pfizer and for the private developer, ruling that any level of government could condemn any private property, as long as it was done for "a conceivably public benefit."  Of course that test is infinitely elastic--which the justices well knew.  But with the last hope of legally stopping the monster now gone, the 100-plus homes were bulldozed, and the development proceeded.

Oh wait...it didn't.  After bulldozing all the homes, the private developer was unable to obtain financing, and abandoned the project.  And in the ultimate insult, Pfizer--having started this evil ball rolling in the first place--didn't build the proposed tax-generating, job-creating "research center."  The 90 seized acres remain empty and undeveloped to this day.

If you think the only damage here was to the homeowners who lost their homes, you're too dumb to be reading this blog.  The problem is that rulings by the supreme court become law, and this ruling infinitely expanded the power of government.  From now on it would be perfectly legal for a corrupt city council to seize any amount of property in a prime area, sell it for a token sum to the brother of one of the council members, who could then re-sell lots for top dollar for new homes.  Corrupt, but by the court's ruling in Kelo, now totally legal. 

SO back to the fix:  Yesterday two judges of a three-judge panel--all women--at the 6th circuit ruled FOR porridge-brain's vax mandate.  Biden's Labor Department quickly issued a statement saying it was gratified that the two women had lifted the Fifth Circuit’s injunction, and graciously announced that it would not begin issuing fines to companies for failing to obey porridge-brain's "vax or be fired" rule before February 9, "so long as an employer is exercising good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.”

Note how quickly the unconstitutional *mandate* became a "standard."  Sounds so much nicer, don't you think?

And graciously giving companies until Feb 9th before they'll issue fines!  We are so lucky to be ruled by such generous bureaucrats and pols, are we not, citizen?

Democrats and pro-vax RINOs were elated.  Those seeking to quash dissent soothingly bleated that "the case will move forward on the merits."

I am SO relieved that the case “will move forward on the merits.”  I’m sure duh supreme court will make a well-grounded decision, just like they did when they heard the lawsuit filed by Texas to stop the steal a year ago.
….Oh, wait…the SC refused to even hear that case, even though when one state sues another, the supreme court IS the court of “original jurisdiction.” (That’s right in the Constitution–-which was once the Supreme Law of the land.)
….Well, at least the court carefully explained the sound legal reasoning behind their refusal even to hear the Texas lawsuit, so we all got to see that the decision was soundly based, eh?
….Oh wait…the refusal wasn’t accompanied by a single word of legal reasoning. Hell, it wasn’t even signed. It was two paragraphs saying “The court declines to hear the case.”
….But I’m sure the court will do much better when they hear the consolidated case against porridgebrain’s “vax or be fired” order.
….Oh wait…the court has ALREADY declined even to hear cases of state mandates in Maine and New York. The excuse-makers (spinmeisters) bleated that this was because the courts have “always given leeway” to states, but that is utter horseshit: The court only allows states to do things the court agrees with. But if the court doesn’t like a state law or policy, they instantly overturn it. Example: states passing a photo-ID law to vote, or re-drawing congressional districts that some black pressure group doesn’t like.

How much more 2-1 votes and court-shopping and refusals to hear a case will it take for Americans to realize that the fix is in?