 Let's talk about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had this major ruling about vaccine mandates a few days ago. They basically ruled that the Biden administration's attempt to use OSHA to enforce a vaccine mandate on the largest corporations in America, that that was unconstitutional, but that the vaccine mandate that the Biden administration enforced on hospitals and health organizations that received funding from Medicare and Medicaid was constitutional. You know, in the way that the Supreme Court thinks about the Constitution, that's probably the right decision. From the principle of the rule of government and properly interpreting the Constitution, none of that was right. So why did the court rule that the Biden administration was wrong in terms of the restriction on vaccine mandates on the largest companies in America? It ruled it was wrong because it tried to use OSHA to establish this. OSHA is the workplace safety occupational hazard agency that was created by Congress. Now, a proper ruling would say that OSHA is unconstitutional, that OSHA should be disbanded, that the law establishing OSHA is a violation of a Constitution. It's giving the executive power more power than the Constitution intended, and it is using that power to intervene in the business of business in a way that it should never do. The Supreme Court ruled, and it would be amazing, but unrealistic and not in my lifetime, that the Supreme Court should rule that the vaccine mandates were wrong because vaccine mandates are wrong. It's not to all the government to tell us what medicine we should or shouldn't take. It's not to all the government to dictate our health care. It's not to all the government to tell us how to take care of ourselves. Again, once you're infected, only then does government have a role, and even then there has to be a threshold of severity. And with Omicron, it's not clear that the government has any role right now in COVID. It's just too mild. It's not significant enough to rise to the level of the government intervening on anything, on any aspect of this. Maybe at the beginning of COVID, it did. Maybe with Delta, it was severe enough. It's not now. Clearly not now, even for older people, as many people are saying. It's endemic now. Leave it alone. It's another flu. People will die. People are going to die from it. People are going to be hospitalized. The hospitals might even be overrun. Let's think about building hospital capacity for emergencies. But enough. Government has no role here. Zero zilch. And I wish the Supreme Court would rule like that, but it's not going to because it doesn't have a view on the role of government. So what did it rule? It basically ruled that the law creating OSHA didn't give OSHA the authority to do something like a vaccine mandate. But if the law had been written differently, or if Congress wants to write a new law, then a vaccine mandate would be legitimate. That is, the problem here was that the executive branch through OSHA has no ability to enforce a vaccine mandate. Not that government has no ability. It's just a procedural thing. Instead of doing it through the executive branch, the Supreme Court is saying, if you want a vaccine mandate, you have to pass a law. So the quibbling today on the Supreme Court is about how to violate our rights. Not about whether to violate our rights. Not about whether to violate our rights. And this is the basis for the Medicare Medicaid. This is why they said yes to vaccine mandate on health workers who work for hospitals who get Medicare Medicaid, because the way the law is written regarding Medicare Medicaid gives the government a lot of authority about how those entities are run, including according to Supreme Court, the authority to mandate vaccination. Again, no principle here other than we go by the law. Now that's okay. That's better than nothing, right? Going by the law is good. But wouldn't it be good? Wouldn't it be good to think about the principle behind it? The idea that this is none of government's business. It's not the job of government. But of course, if they had that conception, if they had a conception of that, then they would advocate for Medicaid and Medicaid to be unconstitutional. They would advocate for OSHA to be unconstitutional, the FDA to be unconstitutional, you know, the CDC in its broad scope to be unconstitutional. But that is a Supreme Court that I will not see in my lifetime. I hope some of you youngsters out there will see in your lifetime. But that would be a Supreme Court that is actually guided by principle, guided by a constitution, guided by a proper understanding of the Constitution, guided by the idea behind the Constitution at the foundation of the Constitution, which is the idea of individual rights and the role of government as the protector of individual rights, not as the runner of our lives. A Supreme Court that understood that the general welfare doesn't mean a modern interpretation of welfare. It means leaving people free. Because that is the general welfare, leaving people free to live their lives, protecting them from force and fraud, defining property rights, defining violations of rights and helping define them and then protecting them. That's it. Unfortunately, even the founders were not consistent about this. But that's the kind of Supreme Court that can overturn a hundred and something years of statism in this country. And until we get that, we're stuck with what we have today. On any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.