High Court Blocks Biden Vaccine Rules for Large Employers
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the administration’s Covid-19 vaccine-or-testing rules for private employers upended the government’s most aggressive effort to combat the pandemic in the workplace. The court did allow it to impose a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.
The Wall Street Journal & Breaking News, Business, Financial and Economic News, World News and Video
WSJ online coverage of breaking news and current headlines from the US and around the world. Top stories, photos, videos, detailed analysis and in-depth reporting.
www.wsj.com
The supreme court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) is required to rule consistent with the United States Constitution.
The U.S. Founders deliberately explicitly intended that. BUT !!
Could the U.S. Founders that enshrined this standard of federal law have imagined the technological ability to vaccinate virtually all U.S. citizens from a deadly global pandemic?
This high court ruling may seem to support individual citizen rights against overbearing federal government. Let's take a closer look.
It is not necessary to vaccinate 100% of a 300,000,000+ human population to impart to that population "herd immunity".
Instead, simply vaccinating a large enough % of the population to deny the communicable pathogen sufficient hosts to sustain itself in the pandemic.
The vax averse segment of the U.S. population may be a minority. But it's a minority segment of the population large enough to sustain the COVID-19 pandemic to the mortal detriment of the majority, thereby allowing for natural COVID-19 mutations (aka "variants" such as Omicron) to evolve.
Question #1:
Was this SCOTUS ruling consistent with SCOTUS' Constitutional charter, in context of 3rd millennium?
Question #2:
Is it proper for ostensible rights of a deadly dangerous minority to continue to impose pandemic death on the broader population?
related: