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.
There have been lots of demonstrations that have gone nowhere.
The only reason the BLM ones got attention was because of the violence they precipitated.
I really can't promote that and yet...............
I understand exactly what you are saying. But if the American people are willing to roll over and not show any unified resistance to a blatant act by a Supreme Court Justices who slams the door of justice closed, and even refuses to comment why she will not entertain hearing a case where a fundamental right of NYC's teachers is being trampled upon by government, then you can bet the beginning of the end is near and the iron fist of government will only grip tighter around the necks of the American people.
James Madison was absolutely spot on when he commented:
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
.
.
JWK
My D-in-law works in manatee county. Think 4 county employees have died that worked there, and countless others tested positive. Yes - why should she go to work in an unhealthy environment??
And what is your proposal insuring a healthy environment with respect to the COVID outbreak?
My D-in-law works in manatee county. Think 4 county employees have died that worked there, and countless others tested positive. Yes - why should she go to work in an unhealthy environment??
The most unhealthy environment anyone could possibly find themselves in is living in a world where they can be forcibly injected with any substance against their will, forever rendering the basic premise of individual freedom, null and void. At that point, you are no longer a human being possessing personal autonomy. You’ve been reduced to the status of livestock …. a farm/ranch animal, having no rights whatsoever!
Anyone not deeply offended and concerned about that, needs a check up from the neck up.
Justice Sotomayor ignores a fundamental right of NYC teachers in COVID case
What is unforgivable in this COVID mandate crap is our judicial system poking its finger in the American People's eye by ignoring the rule of law!
Justice Sotomayor, by rejecting the NYC teachers emergency request for an injunction and to be heard, she embraced NYC trashing and stomping upon a fundamental right of NYC teachers.
Keep in mind when fundamental rights are being infringed upon, as is the case with mandated COVID vaccine jabs, they are presumptively unconstitutional.
See: Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."
And when a person's liberty is infringed upon by government we find:
A government imposed act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
But according to Justice Sotomayor, the teachers emergency request for an injunction on the forced vaccine jab and to be heard, must be without merit and why she rejected the request with no comment. And so, the door is left open for NYC to move forward and impinge upon the teachers fundamental right or they must suffer the consequences . . . loss of job, loss of pay, for not surrendering a fundamental right.
But what has the court stated with regard to that scenario?
“The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
I thought it would be interesting to discuss a government mandated vaccine and the rule of law.
The fact is, legally speaking, any government mandated vaccine, in order to not violate personal protected rights guaranteed under our system of law, must meet a “strict scrutiny” standard so as to not violate the personal rights of those mandated to receive the vaccine.
Under our system of law the mandate must be narrowly tailored which means it must be written precisely to impose as few restrictions as possible, may not be overly broad in its application, e.g., requiring those with natural immunity to receive the vaccine, or force the vaccine upon those who may suffer an adverse reaction, and, the safety and reliability of the product in achieving the government’s stated interest must be established with some certainty.
Fortunately, here in Florida, a judge has imposed an injunction on a government covid vaccine mandate until and if the government can meet the strict scrutiny standard. The case is: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412LINK
.
Since the injunction, the local government has dropped its vaccine mandate! No surprise there as a one-size-fits-all mandate would never hold up in court under strict scrutiny, which is designed to protect our fundamental guaranteed protections, one of which is the right to privacy, another being free to refuse unwanted medical treatments.
JWK
https://www.gainesville.com/story/ne...es/5817190001/ "The city did not put on any evidence, at all, at the injunction hearing," she writes in her ruling. "Without any evidence, the court is unable to consider whether the vaccine mandate serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means, whether the vaccine mandate meets a strict scrutiny test, a rational basis test, or whether it meets any other standard."
https://www.gainesville.com/story/ne...es/5817190001/ "The city did not put on any evidence, at all, at the injunction hearing," she writes in her ruling. "Without any evidence, the court is unable to consider whether the vaccine mandate serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means, whether the vaccine mandate meets a strict scrutiny test, a rational basis test, or whether it meets any other standard."
And? Of course the city did not offer any evidence. It's mandate cannot be defended under strict scrutiny. As I previously stated: ". . . a one-size-fits-all mandate would never hold up in court under strict scrutiny, which is designed to protect our fundamental guaranteed protections, one of which is the right to privacy, another being free to refuse unwanted medical treatments."
.
I wonder if the lawyers representing NYC teachers will refine their arguments and re-submit their request for a temporary injunction on NYC's vaccine mandate which most certainly impinges on a fundamental right [see Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."] and is therefore "presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
https://www.gainesville.com/story/ne...es/5817190001/ "The city did not put on any evidence, at all, at the injunction hearing," she writes in her ruling. "Without any evidence, the court is unable to consider whether the vaccine mandate serves a compelling interest through the least restrictive means, whether the vaccine mandate meets a strict scrutiny test, a rational basis test, or whether it meets any other standard."
The ruling implies that the mandate must meet one of those tests. If it wasn't required to, adjudicating whether it does would not be necessary.
I thought it would be interesting to discuss a government mandated vaccine and the rule of law.
The fact is, legally speaking, any government mandated vaccine, in order to not violate personal protected rights guaranteed under our system of law, must meet a “strict scrutiny” standard so as to not violate the personal rights of those mandated to receive the vaccine.
Under our system of law the mandate must be narrowly tailored which means it must be written precisely to impose as few restrictions as possible, may not be overly broad in its application, e.g., requiring those with natural immunity to receive the vaccine, or force the vaccine upon those who may suffer an adverse reaction, and, the safety and reliability of the product in achieving the government’s stated interest must be established with some certainty.
Fortunately, here in Florida, a judge has imposed an injunction on a government covid vaccine mandate until and if the government can meet the strict scrutiny standard. The case is: DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412LINK
.
Since the injunction, the local government has dropped its vaccine mandate! No surprise there as a one-size-fits-all mandate would never hold up in court under strict scrutiny, which is designed to protect our fundamental guaranteed protections, one of which is the right to privacy, another being free to refuse unwanted medical treatments.
JWK
No man, woman or government can force you to do anything. Especially rape you with a highly experimental deadly drug.
Why can't the decision to get vaccinated be left up to the individual? We know the vaccine is not effective for a lot of people and in some cases can produce serious side effects. I'm not anti vaxx I got both covid vaccine shots but still. Breakthrough infections still happen with this vaccine.
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.