What's new
By:
Filters

Vaccination mandates on the horizon.

Ummduh said:
Why do they even care about this? Their job is to determine the legality of the mandate, not to regurgitate vaccine bullshit, right?

Even if the junk was 100% effective and had absolutely no side effects, that can't change the core of the argument.
Click to expand...
Thomas quipped that Emergency Powers would allow Potus mandate. I think we are FUBAR.
 
My kid (20) told me that they ain't taking any boosters because they're bad DLCs.

:lmao:
 
mobil1syn said:
self test with no records, maybe.

test on the regular and be tracked, NOPE
Click to expand...

Self-test: put that swab in your ear or sweaty taint. Send it.

Self-test other: use your dog/cat/raccoon or kid. Send it in.

:idea:
 
CDA 455 II said:
Listening to these liberal Supreme Court justices is just like listening to MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS.:laughing:

Geeeeeees.........:shaking::homer:
Click to expand...
This is horrible to listen to. Seriously. Idiots. Just more BS and mis-information. We have to force people to get vaccinated to keep the vaccinated safe. :lmao: Soto and Kagan have no clue what they are talking about. There arguments have no basis. No facts or data to backup anything they have said so far.:laughing:

From their arguments I should get to work from home. Because driving to work is too dangerous to risk. :shaking:
 
MattS said:
This is horrible to listen to. Seriously. Idiots. Just more BS and mis-information. We have to force people to get vaccinated to keep the vaccinated safe. :lmao: Soto and Kagan have no clue what they are talking about. There arguments have no basis. No facts or data to backup anything they have said so far.:laughing:

From their arguments I should get to work from home. Because driving to work is too dangerous to risk. :shaking:
Click to expand...
this is why my money is on them upholding mandates...
 
rockota said:
this is why my money is on them upholding mandates...
Click to expand...
While the libs are being the most vocal. I'm hoping the non idiots have already made up their minds and really don't care to argue about it. I don't think they want this on their record. I think it fails and gets shut down.
 
another one thing i was annoyed with was theyre blowing off the people quitting over it. essentially saying its now enough to matter
 
MattS said:
While the libs are being the most vocal. I'm hoping the non idiots have already made up their minds and really don't care to argue about it. I don't think they want this on their record. I think it fails and gets shut down.
Click to expand...
I have stopped arguing with most people. Some lefties that I know I can hold a conversation with and actually go back and forth and in the end we usually agree to disagree but most of the public is not worth the time. Again I think it's a small number of people getting the most screen time
 
MattS said:
While the libs are being the most vocal. I'm hoping the non idiots have already made up their minds and really don't care to argue about it. I don't think they want this on their record. I think it fails and gets shut down.
Click to expand...
I'm going to W.A.G. and say it'll be a 5/4 split in favor of shutting down/blocking the mandates; with Chief Justice Roberts was sounding like he was against said mandate.

It literally sounded like Justice Kagan and Sotomayor were reading the teleprompters from MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS.

At times those two were lying through their fucking teeth; quoting the Fauci narrative word-for-fucking-word!:mad3:
 
rockota said:
My money is on SCOTUS upholding the mandate.
Click to expand...
Well this does not look good.

Justice Sotomayor Claims Not to Understand the Distinction Between State and Federal Powers​


Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor professed not to be able to understand the distinction between federal authority and state police powers during oral arguments in a consolidated case before the court on Friday morning.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) rule states that employers of 100 or more workers must either require employees to be vaccinated, or force unvaccinated employees to submit to weekly testing and masking in the workplace. Both the National Federation of Independent Business and the state of Ohio are suing to end the OSHA vaccine or test mandate.

Critics, including the plaintiffs, submit that the rule represents federal and bureaucratic overreach. On Friday morning, Sotomayor expressed her dissatisfaction and puzzlement at that critique.

“I’m not sure I understand the distinction why the states would have the power [to institute a mandate such as OSHA’s], but the federal government wouldn’t,” stated the associate justice.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

When Ohio solicitor general Ben Flowers began to explain that the federal government lacks police powers, Sotomayor cut him off, exclaiming that that it has “power with respect to protecting the health and safety of workers. ”

“We have accept[ed] the constitutionality of OSHA,” continued Sotomayor, who eventually insisted that the federal government has “a police power to protect workers,” over Flowers’s objections.

Those objections are rooted in the Tenth Amendment, which states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In constitutional law, these are frequently referred to as “police powers,” and refer to efforts to regulate the health, safety, and morals of the populace.

Later in the oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas asked Flowers if he believed the state of Ohio could impose a mandate like OSHA’s in an effort to clarify the meaning and role of police powers.

Flowers answered in the affirmative, even going so far as to argue that Ohio could mandate vaccination for all of its residents.

Thomas finished the exchange by noting that “there seems to be a suggestion that this is all-or-nothing, that the other governmental bodies do not have police powers to regulate certain activities.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch later waded into the debate as well, asserting that “we have all kind of come to the point where we all agree that states have a wide police power under our constitutional system. Congress has to regulate consistent with the commerce clause,” before going on to note that Congress is required to legislate on major questions, rather than delegating that decision-making authority to federal agencies.
Click to expand...
 
nahmus said:
Well this does not look good.

Justice Sotomayor Claims Not to Understand the Distinction Between State and Federal Powers​

Click to expand...
How she got on the bench is the real question. Seriously. She can't think. She's either reading some script her law clerks wrote up or talking herself into a corner or repeating what the last person said. She has no ability to intake info and then talk about it.
 
MattS said:
How she got on the bench is the real question.
Click to expand...

MAC31_OBAMA-CLINTON_POST01.jpg
 
MattS said:
How she got on the bench is the real question. Seriously. She can't think. She's either reading some script her law clerks wrote up or talking herself into a corner or repeating what the last person said. She has no ability to intake info and then talk about it.
Click to expand...
IIRC; I think she was always in teaching and not practicing law.

As I remember; both Kagan and Sotomayor were appointed purely as an Affirmative Action choice, not a choice on merit or substance.
 
nahmus said:
She checked the boxes. Diversity of race/gender but not thinking.
Click to expand...
I was listening via the Rekeita Law live stream that had several lawyers.

They points out many outright lies Sotomayor was saying throughout both arguments.


It was so bad; Sotomayor almost made AOC sound sophisticated.:eek:
 
Thefishguy77 said:
Term limits is the only fix.
Click to expand...
Because politicizing the Court and having a President get to select on a set schedule definitely won't fuck with overall elections or the integrity of the Court.

There's a reason they're in the position for life and there's no process for their removal.
 
Heard that the fed mandate for boosters got shot down, but can't find anything concrete about it.

Our company sent out an email a while back saying it's coming (and they will too) and was trying to find a status update on it.
 
CDA 455 II said:
IIRC; I think she was always in teaching and not practicing law.

As I remember; both Kagan and Sotomayor were appointed purely as an Affirmative Action choice, not a choice on merit or substance.
Click to expand...
They were both identity politics, true believers for the cause.
 
reptillikus said:
If theyre anything like the HR dept we have, while they could probably figure it out, theyre too lazy to try.
Click to expand...
The HR lady we have is like that one teacher in High School who you could tell them that you handed in your assignment and they assume that they must have lost it and just give you 100% on it. She is not all there.
 
Motorcharge said:
Because politicizing the Court and having a President get to select on a set schedule definitely won't fuck with overall elections or the integrity of the Court.

There's a reason they're in the position for life and there's no process for their removal.
Click to expand...
12 year terms. 2 terms. First one is as it is today, second one the same process then the people are told the entire justices activity for their first term. Then a 2/3rds popular vote to get the next 12 years. If you think this will make it worse then so be it. I think it will make it better. To each their own.

Its not like I am saying they get 4 or 6 year terms.

Eta: the position was lifetime because most would not make 20 years. Justices are now serving decades and decades.
 
Thefishguy77 said:
12 year terms. 2 terms. First one is as it is today, second one the same process then the people are told the entire justices activity for their first term. Then a 2/3rds popular vote to get the next 12 years. If you think this will make it worse then so be it. I think it will make it better. To each their own.

Its not like I am saying they get 4 or 6 year terms.
Click to expand...
And how do you set that up so that a single President doesn't get to pack an entire Court?

The SCOTUS isn't the problem, it's a symptom. The problem is the lower Courts haven't been addressed in over half a century and no longer represent the populations they're meant to. Some Districts, especially the 9th wield far more influence than they should. Congress needs to do it's job and redistrict the appellate courts and the lower courts need to be reigned in in general to stop them from trying to legislate from the bench. They're meant to take overall burden off the SCOTUS so that they're only taking on new issues, they're meant to rule based on the Constitution and existing SCOTUS rulings. Most the Districts do, but when you have a District like the Ninth that dwarfs the others and ignores both the Constitution and standing SCOTUS rulings routinely the result is overwhelming the SCOTUS to the point that they have to routintely turn down cases and leave lower Court rulings standing where they never should.
 
Rerock said:
Heard that the fed mandate for boosters got shot down, but can't find anything concrete about it.
Click to expand...
Assuming thats true, what is defined as vaccinated, and whats a booster? First it was one shot, then 2, now 3, right? If they say you need 6 pfizer shots to be 'vaccinated' then you need 6. Its all about what they define as a vaccine vs what they define a booster shot.

Its sure sounding like the mandate is going to be upheld.
 
rockota said:
this is why my money is on them upholding mandates...
Click to expand...
This. This will also be the COVID "out" for the .gov. They will enact this temporary standard, it expires after 6months, cases naturally drop during that time, they also change the testing guidelines again, public private partnerships have once again saved the day, everyone in .gov beats thier dicks that they saved humanity and COVID is over. Precedence is then set for them to do this everytime big pharma needs more money or our shady ass government fucks up funding some corrupt mad men in a lab in some 3rd world hell hole and they leak something again on accident.
 
Motorcharge said:
And how do you set that up so that a single President doesn't get to pack an entire Court?

The SCOTUS isn't the problem, it's a symptom. The problem is the lower Courts haven't been addressed in over half a century and no longer represent the populations they're meant to. Some Districts, especially the 9th wield far more influence than they should. Congress needs to do it's job and redistrict the appellate courts and the lower courts need to be reigned in in general to stop them from trying to legislate from the bench. They're meant to take overall burden off the SCOTUS so that they're only taking on new issues, they're meant to rule based on the Constitution and existing SCOTUS rulings. Most the Districts do, but when you have a District like the Ninth that dwarfs the others and ignores both the Constitution and standing SCOTUS rulings routinely the result is overwhelming the SCOTUS to the point that they have to routintely turn down cases and leave lower Court rulings standing where they never should.
Click to expand...
Well unless you vote all the justices in during the same election year I dont think it would be much different than now. But it would allow the people to see just who the justices are vs the mystic thing they encompass.

I am saying nothing about the lower courts. The whole system is full of malfeasance. There are some great people in the courts at all levels. The SCOTUS is about the only system powerful enough to check a run away potus beside the people. Both seem to have the spin of a wet noodle as a whole. Now excuse me I am off to look for some garlic meatball sauce for my wet noodle spine as well. As I have not done shit either. :flipoff2:
 
reptillikus said:
Assuming thats true, what is defined as vaccinated, and whats a booster? First it was one shot, then 2, now 3, right? If they say you need 6 pfizer shots to be 'vaccinated' then you need 6. Its all about what they define as a vaccine vs what they define a booster shot.

Its sure sounding like the mandate is going to be upheld.
Click to expand...
Not going to be relevant unless the mandate is upheld, which from looking at even places like NBC and CNN, it doesn't look like it's going to be. This isn't deciding this particular "vaccine", but whether or not the Federal government can mandate private businesses require vaccines or testing. The mandate for Federal workers and contractors will likely stand.

Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett have said it's too overly broad to stand. Thomas generally doesn't comment publicly, but he's a hardline Constitutionalist, we know where he stands. That just leaves Alito as an unknown right now and he's unlikely to side with Liberal wing on something like this. It's looking like a 6-3 ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh