Original Constitutional (Founder) intent, vs 3rd Millennium utilitarianism: has SCOTUS ruled for benefit of humanity, or against it?

[sear]

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:

• Biden Says U.S. Will Procure 500 Million More Covid-19 Tests​

• Omicron Appears to Have Peaked in U.K.​

 

[sear]

Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban A split Supreme Court is declining to hear a challenge to state bans on assault weapons, semiautomatic rifles that are popular among gun owners and that have also been used in multiple mass shootings.
By LINDSAY WHITEHURST / Updated 12:08 PM GMT-5, June 2, 2025
WASHINGTON (AP) — A split Supreme Court on Monday rejected a pair of gun rights cases, though one conservative justice predicted the court would soon consider whether assault weapons bans are constitutional.
The majority did not explain its reasoning in turning down the cases over high-capacity magazines and state bans on guns like the AR-15, popular weapons that have also been used in mass shootings.
But three conservative justices on the nine-member court publicly noted their disagreement, and a fourth said he is skeptical that assault-weapons bans are constitutional.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have taken a case challenging Maryland’s ban, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to say the law likely runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
“I would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” Thomas wrote. “That question is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.”

Loading…

apnews.com

 

[sear]

News|Donald Trump

US appeals court rules Trump can keep control of California National Guard​

President Donald Trump hails decision as ‘big win’, but Governor Gavin Newsom promises to pursue legal challenge.
A United States appeals court has ruled the administration of President Donald Trump could keep control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.
The decision on Thursday comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in California’s largest city, which has become ground zero of Trump’s immigration crackdown across the US.

In a 38-page unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said Trump was within his rights earlier this month when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to “protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property”.
“Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalising the National Guard,” the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal said.
Trump, a Republican, had appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel while his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, had named the third, according to US media reports.

US appeals court rules Trump can keep control of California National Guard

President Donald Trump hails decision as ‘big win’, but Governor Gavin Newsom vows to pursue legal challenge.

www.aljazeera.com

According to the United States Constitution: ARTICLE2. SECTION 2. 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices ...

Should California Governor Gavin Newsom have a veto over deployment of military troops in his jurisdiction? "Elections have consequences", a refrain often provided by Republicans dismissive of objections to Republican policy.
As Governor Newsom is the elected CEO of California, should his approach to free speech be ignored, countermanded?

And what of the familiar Republican 10th Amendment argument: "leave it to the States"?
That's good for education, and women's reproductive services, but not activating military troops? Why the Republican double-standard?

 

[Shiftless2]

... what of the familiar Republican 10th Amendment argument: "leave it to the States"?

Didn't you know? That only applies if the states are doing what you (i.e., Trump) wants them to do.