Analysis of the court's schizophrenic RULING on the two "take the jab or be fired" cases

As everyone knows by now, yesterday the "supreme" court issued two rulings on cases objecting to  bidenfail's DECREE forcing unvaxxed workers to take the non-vaccine jab.  Everyone paying attention should also know that the court upheld the regime's power to force healthcare workers to take the jab, but denied OSHA's authority to force companies NOT involved in healthcare to force the jab.

Because the second ruling covered almost 100 MILLION Americans, while the first "only" applied to a million or so, many conservatives are cheering the split decision (as in, one win, one loss).

But if you take the time to actually READ the opinion issued by the court, you'll see that the exact same reasoning the court used to uphold the healthcare DECREE would allow it to support the OSHA *decree*--if only OSHA bureaucrats had used the proper language in that DECREE.  Let me explain:

In upholding bidenfail's DECREE that healthcare workers must take the jab or be fired, the court noted that a) in the law establishing Medicare, congress gave the Sec. of HHS the power to issue any rule he wanted, *provided* b) that RULE was necessary for the "safe and effective operation" of  ANY healthcare operations that accepted federal funds.  This is standard "boilerplate" language in virtually every law passed by congress.

In DECREEING that healthcare workers had to vax or be fired, HHS made the superficially-plausible assertion that a) unvaxxed people were more likely to catch covid, and transmit it; b) that this posed a danger both to patients and to other workers; c) that this added risk would reduce the effectiveness of the operations HHS was funding.  Thus the DECREE ordering all healthcare workers to take the jab or be fired was necessary to carry out what congress had ordered HHS to do.

The law establishing OSHA gave that agency the same power as HHS--to issue "all rules and regulations necessary" to carry out the tasks established by congress.  So how is this materially different from the healthcare case? 

It's not.  Congress passed a *law* creating a new agency with the task of "ensuring safety in the workplace" and authorizing the Secretary of Labor to issue all rules and regulation necessary to carry out that mission.  The only difference is that the HHS rule cited a chain of reasoning showing why their "vax of be fired" DECREE was needed, whereas OSHA's decree didn't have the right wording.

Now: one win out of the two cases is obviously better than nothing, but you should all realize that the court's RULING clearly pointed out what OSHA needed to do to issue a "vax or be fired" rule the court would uphold.

In the case of federal workers NOT in healthcare (which hasn't yet gone to the SC), the court will rule that since fed employees NOT working for congress [spit!] or the courts work for the Executive branch, porridgebrain has the power to order them to do anything he wants, as long as the order is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

Of course that's not how the Constitution was written (see Tenth Amendment), but the court long ago trashed the Tenth, and there's no power that can overturn the "supreme" decisions, so...

All that's needed to get the court to uphold the forced jab on all companies (regardless of # of employees) is for OSHA to issue a NEW rule that uses the exact same language used by Becerra at HHS, namely 

• a) unvaxxed persons pose a greater risk of transmitting the "deadly!!!" virus to others; 
• b) forcing employees to work near unvaxxed employees is a "workplace hazard;"  
• c) employers who do NOT require the jab are increasing the risk of DEATH to all employees; so 
• d) employers MUST require all employees to take the jab, or we will fine them X-thousand dollars per day--cuz we're always lookin' for ways to make duh workplaces safer, eh?
  

Once one accepts that whenever congress creates a government agency tasked with doing X, it also gives the Secretary of Bullshit the power to issue ANY rule or reg needed to carry out that task, that was the end of it.  All that's needed is for the agency to use the correct wording of their DECREE. 

Now: The regime obviously knows what I just explained, so the question is, when will the JoHo regime tell OSHA to issue the new ORDER that the court has clearly implied they will uphold?  I doubt it will come before the midterm elections in November, but then again we've all been stunned by the audacity displayed by the forces of malevolence and destruction.

Example: did you ever think that after porridgebrain said "We will NOT make vaccines mandatory--we don't have that power," that he'd turn right around and issue the "vax or be fired" ORDER?

Did you ever think the Democrats would change Title IX to allow men to compete against women in sports?  To force every public school to allow trannies to use girls' bathrooms?  Did you think it was possible to jail citizens for over a year--in solitary confinement--without bail and without trial?

Did you ever imagine the Democrats would discharge members of the armed forces for "liking" a post on social media?  Ever imagine school boards would order parents arrested for yelling at 'em during school board meetings?  Every imagine porridgebrain's corrupt Sec of Education would write the National Association of School Boards suggesting that they write the regime's DOJ to ASK that Garland investigate parents who disagreed with what was being taught in public schools?

All these things have happened, in less than a single year.