The Supreme Court lopsidedly shot down the Biden administration's clearly unconstitutional workplace requirement that 80 million Americans must receive hypodermic needle injections, ostensibly to "protect" against COVID, even if they don't want the shots.  By a 6-3 vote, the Court said the government has no legitimate authority to do that.

The same High Court — by a single vote — expanded the government's unaccountability and sovereignty over the people's lives by permitting a similar diktat that demands that 10 million health care workers receive the same hypodermic injection, ostensibly for the same reasons.

There are many troubling aspects to the Biden v. Missouri decision.  But most troubling is the further expansion of the Big Brother brand of federal government that is neither answerable to the people nor restrained by laws.

One step forward, one step back.  The High Court acknowledged the federal government's limitations when it comes to private American workers.  But the administrative state's victory to impose an identical requirement on health care workers arguably does more damage than the other ruling did good.

Why?  As Justice Samuel Alito explained in his dissent: "Today's decision will ripple through administrative agencies' future decision making[.]"

Alito threw a spotlight on the crux of the problem that has grown like cancer in government since the administration of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Congress is increasingly irrelevant as the Executive Branch and a monstrously oversized bureaucracy effectively make the bulk of America's "laws" and regulations by fiat.

As Alito wrote: "Under our Constitution, the authority to make laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose members are elected by the people.  Elected representatives solicit the views of their constitu­ents, listen to their complaints and requests, and make a great effort to accommodate their concerns.  Today, how­ever, most federal law is not made by Congress.  It comes in the form of rules issued by unelected administrators."

Biden v. Missouri was a huge win for the interests that for 80 years have been expanding unaccountable big government at the expense of the voice and the rights of the people.

"The agency that issued the mandate at issue here, i.e., the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, ad­mits it did not comply with the commonsense measure of seeking public input before placing binding rules on mil­lions of people," Alito wrote in his dissent.

Strict adherence to constitutional principles gives "individuals and entities who may be seriously impacted by agency rules at least some opportunity to make their views heard and to have them given serious consider­ation," Alito explained.  "Congress has clearly required that agencies comply with basic procedural safeguards.  Except in rare cases, an agency must provide public notice of proposed rules."

We have just witnessed such a "rare case" in which public notice and comment were deemed unnecessary by the bureaucrats in the Biden administration.  We also are watching what is supposedly "rare" become increasingly commonplace.

Alito cited precedent that provides that "the public must be given the opportunity to comment on those proposals ... and if the agency issues the rule, it must address concerns raised during the notice-and-comment process."  If you wonder whether you had that opportunity before the vaccine mandate went into effect, you didn't.

If you think this means that you can expect more diktats from on high without regard to your consent or even comment, you're right.  That one step backward was a huge step, and you have little if any option except to file lawsuits after the fact and hope the damage the Administrative State does can be repaired by the time your case gets a hearing or a decision by the Supreme Court.

As Alito points out, this ruling "has an importance that extends beyond the confines of these cases.  It may have a lasting effect on Executive Branch behavior."

There is no "maybe" about this:  Those health care employees who submit to the vaccination to save their jobs won't be able to undo whatever the vaccine does to them.

As the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines has been exposed as fleeting at best, many vax critics point to adverse side-effects, up to and including blood clots, inflammation of the heart, fatal strokes, and heart attacks.

Rather than put such a momentous decision and its ramifications before the people for comment and approval, the Biden administration "did none of those things," Alito wrote.

Here's the twist of the knife: Alito also noted, "[T]oday's ruling means only that the Federal Govern­ment is likely to be able to show that this departure is law­ful, not that it actually is" lawful.

Let that sink in.  Take your jab and its consequences, even though later the government may be shown to have forced you unlawfully.

If we give the government the benefit of the doubt, maybe Biden's minions are operating on the principle that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.  That's a strategy FDR, the shaper of the modern administrative state, would no doubt smile upon.

Mark Landsbaum is a Christian retired journalist, former investigative reporter, editorial writer, and columnist.  He also is a husband, father, grandfather, and Dodgers fan.  He can be reached at mark.landsbaum@gmail.com. 

Image: Picryl.