Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good lord, I hate high humidity and heat. Why does liberty have to take a stand in such a hellish place? Why couldn't it have happened in, say, North Dakota? Or UP Michigan? Or Montana? Or northern Maine? I'd move to those places in a minute to avoid tyranny. But not Florida.
Seems to me the residents in those "blue" states chose their way of life when they voted for the left-wing power- monging politicians that run those states.
The judge revealed his bias in the case by only applying the lowest standard of judicial scrutiny to her legal complaint.
From FindLaw.com: What Are The Levels of Scrutiny?
When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, both state and federal courts will commonly apply one of three levels of judicial scrutiny from the spectrum of scrutiny:
Rational Basis Review
This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to challenged laws, and it has historically required very little for a law to pass as constitutional. Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:
The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.
Courts using this test are highly deferential to the government and will often deem a law to have a rational basis as long as that law had any conceivable, rational basis -- even if the government never provided one. This test typically applies to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, or felony status.
When a person's livelihood is being threatened, it is a very serious matter--certainly serious enough to deserve the highest level of scrutiny. This judge decided not to apply the highest level of scrutiny, and did a disservice to this woman.
They are appealing.
The shyster judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, also referenced and relied upon the outdated JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS case which was decided long before the protection of strict scrutiny had been developed.
As to Ms. Norris, what seems to be overlooked is, "reasonable expectation". A person works for a company for, say 15 years and nears retirement, and does so under specific rules agreed to by both parties. And then, 15 years down the road the employer decides to demand the employee follow a newly created rule or get fired and lose their expected retirement agreement. This of course raises the reasonable expectation argument: is the new rule reasonable to the degree that would justify the employee losing their expected retirement plan, and void the employee/employer agreement which happens to be an issue for the court to decide.
Of course, an employer who mandates such an intrusive medical decision, one which impinges upon a fundamental right, [get vaccinated or be fired] upon their employees should, at the very least, be able to justify the soundness and necessity of such a rule, which once again seems to trigger the "strict scrutiny" test.
The shyster judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, also referenced and relied upon the outdated JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS case which was decided long before the protection of strict scrutiny had been developed.
As to Ms. Norris, what seems to be overlooked is, "reasonable expectation". A person works for a company for, say 15 years and nears retirement, and does so under specific rules agreed to by both parties. And then, 15 years down the road the employer decides to demand the employee follow a newly created rule or get fired and lose their expected retirement agreement. This of course raises the reasonable expectation argument: is the new rule reasonable to the degree that would justify the employee losing their expected retirement plan, and void the employee/employer agreement which happens to be an issue for the court to decide.
Of course, an employer who mandates such an intrusive medical decision, one which impinges upon a fundamental right, [get vaccinated or be fired] upon their employees should, at the very least, be able to justify the soundness and necessity of such a rule, which once again seems to trigger the "strict scrutiny" test.
JWK
As you have clearly stated here, there are many other legal considerations that apparently were not entertained by this judge, and that need to be fully explored and heard, before this case is settled. I wish her great success in her appeals.
NY Court grants protection of strict scrutiny in COVID vaccine mandate case
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResistTheReset
As you have clearly stated here, there are many other legal considerations that apparently were not entertained by this judge, and that need to be fully explored and heard, before this case is settled. I wish her great success in her appeals.
I thought you would appreciate this!
.
As you know, the protection of strict scrutiny is required to be applied by the court whenever a fundamental right is impinged upon by a government action. And, we now have another case where the court provides the protection of strict scrutiny in a COVID vaccine mandate case!
“A federal judge in New York granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday in favor of 17 health care workers applying for religious exemptions to the state’s COVID-19 mandate.â€
“Finally, plaintiffs have established at this early stage of the litigation that § 2.61 is likely to fail strict scrutiny. To satisfy strict scrutiny, defendants must show that the challenged law advances “interests of the highest order†and is “narrowly tailored†to achieve those interests. Fulton v. City of Phila., Pa., 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1881 (2021) (quoting City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. at 546). “Put another way, so long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion, it must do so.†Id.â€.
Now, all we have to do is get the Union lawyers representing NYC teachers, to get strict scrutiny protection for NYC teachers, who are having their liberty, medical privacy and autonomy infringed upon by the COVID vaccine mandate.
See: Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986, a New York State Court of Appeals decision, to establish a fundamental right is being infringed upon by the NYC vaccine mandate. In the case the Court stated:
†In Storar, we recognized that a patient’s right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor’s obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient’s life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient’s liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.
In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to insure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own… â€.
The judge revealed his bias in the case by only applying the lowest standard of judicial scrutiny to her legal complaint.
From FindLaw.com: What Are The Levels of Scrutiny?
When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, both state and federal courts will commonly apply one of three levels of judicial scrutiny from the spectrum of scrutiny:
Rational Basis Review
This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to challenged laws, and it has historically required very little for a law to pass as constitutional. Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:
The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.
Courts using this test are highly deferential to the government and will often deem a law to have a rational basis as long as that law had any conceivable, rational basis -- even if the government never provided one. This test typically applies to all laws or regulations which are challenged as irrational or arbitrary as well as discrimination based on age, disability, wealth, or felony status.
When a person's livelihood is being threatened, it is a very serious matter--certainly serious enough to deserve the highest level of scrutiny. This judge decided not to apply the highest level of scrutiny, and did a disservice to this woman.
They are appealing.
I get strict scrutiny. But the court here said that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to vaccine mandates. Maybe it applies to a religious exemption, but I think that decision will be tossed as well. These arguments came up during ebola and SCOTUS let Jacobson stand despite several appeals. It's not "old law" or outdated. In fact, SCOTUS has denied appeals so far from groups who lost their challenge of the mandate.
I doubt you fully understand the function of strict scrutiny
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
I get strict scrutiny. But the court here said that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to vaccine mandates. Maybe it applies to a religious exemption . . .
Judging from your above post, you don't get what "strict scrutiny" protection is about.
The protection afforded under strict scrutiny is applied whenever a government action, such as a mandated covid vaccination, infringes upon a fundamental and protected right and that right is claimed to have been violated, which in this case happens to involve a religious belief.
Once it is determined that a fundamental right is infringed upon by an act of government, in this case it is a mandated covid vaccination which violates a religious belief, the government must established the vaccination mandate:
(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,
(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,
(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.
In any event IN THIS POST I provided sufficient documentation and information which will explain the protection of strict scrutiny, and I suggest you especially read the THE COURT RULING in the latest [10/12/21] New York covid vaccine mandate case.
I get strict scrutiny. But the court here said that strict scrutiny doesn't apply to vaccine mandates. Maybe it applies to a religious exemption, but I think that decision will be tossed as well. These arguments came up during ebola and SCOTUS let Jacobson stand despite several appeals. It's not "old law" or outdated. In fact, SCOTUS has denied appeals so far from groups who lost their challenge of the mandate.
So, did the court opinion I posted shed new light for you on what "strict scrutiny" protection is about, and when it is applicable?
In reading Jacobson's Complaint, he stated that he already had been vaccinated in his Native Sweden, had a bad reaction to it, and did not want to get a another vaccination for small pox.
In today's world he would have been seeking a Medical, not a Religious, Exemption. This would have entailed foreign documents, and testimony from a foreign medical professional. Who was his attorney? Did he even have one then?
How many people today have had the same thing happen to them with their 1st or 2nd Covid vaccinations, and are not getting "fully" vaccinated. Might this also happen now with boosters?
Anecdotal experience. My husband has a heart condition, high BP, and takes meds to lower it. When he got his 2nd vaccination, his BP went dangerously low. He called his Cardiologist who said to stop taking the meds and immediately go to the ER if it went any lower.
Cardiologist said she was going to report this to VAERS. Maybe his should have stopped taking that BP medication before getting vaccinated? CDC wouldn't want to know this and issue a warning?
In reading Jacobson's Complaint, he stated that he already had been vaccinated in his Native Sweden, had a bad reaction to it, and did not want to get a another vaccination for small pox.
In today's world he would have been seeking a Medical, not a Religious, Exemption. This would have entailed foreign documents, and testimony from a foreign medical professional. Who was his attorney? Did he even have one then?
How many people today have had the same thing happen to them with their 1st or 2nd Covid vaccinations, and are not getting "fully" vaccinated. Might this also happen now with boosters?
You do raise a very, very legitimate concern. But it appears the COVID jabbers are intent on jabbing everyone, and don't care what the consequences may bring, nor care about adhering to the rule of law.
JWK
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NY Court grants protection of strict scrutiny in COVID vaccine mandate case
