>>15187444 pb

The way I read the articles (haven't read the actual ruling or dissent yet), it is NOT the case on the NY vaxx mandate that was rejected, it was the emergency appeal for an injunction. Just because an injunction is denied doesn't mean the merits of the underlying case won't eventually be addressed by the Supreme Court when it winds its way up.

Sure, practically speaking, for those who are living under the mandate, it socks. They have to get jabbed or be fired without benefits. And I agree with the dissenters, the injunction should have been allowed. But that doesn't mean the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of the mandate. It only ruled on the injunction so far.