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.
"Today, 91.78% of our patients hospitalized are unvaccinated and 100% of patients in our ICU are unvaccinated," said Susan Greenwood, system vice president and chief nursing officer for Hendrick Health, in a news conference.
Looks like Mandates have won US Supreme Court has decided to allow mandating of vaccines. I'm surprised by this I figured the right leaning court would block this.
So do we know the argument why they refused to block it? This article doesn't say and just wonder if any of you know if there was some specific argument used.
It seems to me, the legal question here, is similar to that posed in United States v. Jackson, & cited upthread:
Quote:
The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental†rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive.
That about sums it up.
Heck, even in the outdated JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS case, the Court emphatically stated:
“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force . . . "
Why do the COVID jabbers keep ignoring our nation's rule of law?
W.Va. Officials Say ‘Breakthrough’ COVID Cases On The Rise
“Gov. Jim Justice announced Monday that, over the past eight weeks, there has been a 26% increase in new breakthrough cases, a 21% increase in breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization and a 25% increase in breakthrough deaths.â€
At this point in time it is pretty clear COVID is here to stay for a very long time. We need to learn to live with it by treating it, and screw the endless vaccine crap which is ruining our lives and destroying businesses, not to mention how it is being used in a manner which is abusive to our nation’s children.
Heck, even in the outdated JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS case, the Court emphatically stated:
“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force . . . "
Why do the COVID jabbers keep ignoring our nation's rule of law?
JWK
Regarding the pandemic, it's not settled whether or not the effect is unnecessary & therefore excessive.
Requiring masks does not seem, to me, to be "unnecessary & therefore excessive".
So too requiring folks to be vaccinated.
It depends on the circumstances. The science is not settled. Ideological perspectives are often based on 'self-settled axiomatic thinking patterns', I remain skeptical of such.
if asylum requests take 2/3 years to determine the validity of those requests, how long will Covid religious exemptions take? Will the government be inspecting church attendance roles? I expect millions will be applying for them if Covid shots are mandated.
Regarding the pandemic, it's not settled whether or not the effect is unnecessary & therefore excessive.
Requiring masks does not seem, to me, to be "unnecessary & therefore excessive".
So too requiring folks to be vaccinated.
It depends on the circumstances. The science is not settled. Ideological perspectives are often based on 'self-settled axiomatic thinking patterns', I remain skeptical of such.
Well, just for your information, and with respect to the "rule of law", our system of law requires the protection of "strict scrutiny" whenever a government actions infringes upon a fundamental right.
Should the rule of law not be our guide in such matters?
Well, just for your information, and with respect to the "rule of law", our system of law requires the protection of "strict scrutiny" whenever a government actions infringes upon a fundamental right.
Should the rule of law not be our guide in such matters?
Originally Posted by johnwk1
Well, just for your information, and with respect to the "rule of law", our system of law requires the protection of "strict scrutiny" whenever a government actions infringes upon a fundamental right.
Should the rule of law not be our guide in such matters?
JWK
Don't be ridiculous, it's not helpful.
Huh?
Please explain what you mean by that.
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.
