Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2021, 03:56 PM
 
3,348 posts, read 1,408,129 times
Reputation: 1083

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
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

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2021, 03:12 PM
 
3,348 posts, read 1,408,129 times
Reputation: 1083
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
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?

JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 08:53 AM
 
14,838 posts, read 8,468,189 times
Reputation: 7293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinytrump View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 08:58 AM
 
3,348 posts, read 1,408,129 times
Reputation: 1083
Default 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


JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 09:03 AM
 
45,680 posts, read 23,815,156 times
Reputation: 15558
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1 View Post
.

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-2412 LINK
.
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."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 09:28 AM
 
3,348 posts, read 1,408,129 times
Reputation: 1083
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
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."

JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 03:45 PM
 
3,348 posts, read 1,408,129 times
Reputation: 1083
.
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)

JWK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 03:54 PM
 
8,181 posts, read 2,748,758 times
Reputation: 6015
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 03:58 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,333,199 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk1 View Post
.

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-2412 LINK
.
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2021, 04:25 PM
nng
 
695 posts, read 286,028 times
Reputation: 695
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top