442

Wrong about one federal mandate, right about the other one.

One outta two ain’t bad

Allan

443

Will you admit the absurdity of this argument?

Anyone can cherry-pick now can’t they?

Let’s just call it even. Lol

Allan

444

No. I will not call it even. A majority on the Court intentionally trampled upon the fundamental rights of healthcare workers.

The majority trampled upon the inalienable right of people being free to make their own medical decisions and choices. Apparently, the majority were willing to ignore what our Supreme Court has emphatically established regarding indirectly impinging upon the fundamental rights of mankind:

“The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618

Additionally, a government 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)

So where does this established law leave us regarding the mandate and the healthcare workers fundamental rights?

The fact is, under such circumstances the Court was required, at the very least, to apply “strict scrutiny” to the mandate:

(A) which must 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.

The majority on the Court ignored the protection of applying strict scrutiny to the mandate so as to protect the healthcare workers’ fundamental rights, and make necessary accommodations for them, while at the same time working to thread the needle to “achieve the government’s stated purpose”.

We now see a majority on our Supreme Court is not only willing to ignore established law but are likewise willing to trample upon the fundamental rights of American citizens.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

445

As pointed out in the opinion.

Vax are mandated for other diseases for healthcare workers.

Why single out the covid vax…

Allan

446

Are you against all vax requirements or just the covid one for healthcare workers?

That’s a legit question.

Allan

447

Irrelevant. And, HERE IS WHY

JWK

448

SCOTUS opinions irrelevant?

Surely you jest.

They are part of the checks and balances.

Allan

449

What is irrelevant is the following which you wrote:

“Vax are mandated for other diseases for healthcare workers.”

If you are sincerely interested in discussing the lawlessness which the Majority participated in, I suggest you studying Justice Thomas’ dissent which can be found HERE, part of which reads:

“Under our Constitution, the authority to make laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose Members are elected by the people. Elected representatives solicit the views of their constituents, listen to their complaints and requests, and make a great effort to accommodate their concerns. Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress.”

The fact is, not only did the Majority trample upon healthcare workers’ fundamental rights, but it likewise trampled upon our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives are entrusted with the exclusive law-making power.

Keep in mind that Congress may not delegate its power to set standards, principles, or general public policy.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

450

:rofl: What a post!

1 Like
451

image

JWK

452

No that’s what SCOTUS wrote in their opinion

“Vaccination re- quirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America: Healthcare workers around the country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for dis- eases such as hepatitis B, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella. CDC, State Healthcare Worker and Patient Vaccination Laws (Feb. 28, 2018),”

So what is the difference between covid vaccine mandate and these other vaccines which are mandated.

Short answer: no difference.

Therefore SCOTUS is allowing the healthcare mandate to go forward.

It’s pretty easy to see.

Allan

453

That is irrelevant to whether or not unelected administrators have an arbitrary authority to make laws
or “rules” that impose obligations on the American people, especially when they affect the personal liberty and fundamental rights of American citizens.

Seems to me you intentionally ignored what I posted HERE

JWK

454

Take it up with SCOTUS, it’s their opinion.

Don’t shoot the messenger. :grinning:

Allan

455

Well, it didn’t take long for you to post a snarky reply.

In any event, it’s the Majority’s opinion and those who are sincerely interested in focusing on the lawlessness which the Majority participated in, I suggest you read the Alito/Thomas dissent which can be found HERE, part of which reads:

“Under our Constitution, the authority to make laws that impose obligations on the American people is conferred on Congress, whose Members are elected by the people. Elected representatives solicit the views of their constituents, listen to their complaints and requests, and make a great effort to accommodate their concerns. Today, however, most federal law is not made by Congress.”

The fact is, not only did the Majority trample upon healthcare workers’ fundamental rights which I pointed out HERE, but they likewise trampled upon our Constitution’s guarantee to a “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives are entrusted with the exclusive law-making power.

Keep in mind that Congress may not lawfully delegate its power to set standards, principles, or general public policy.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

1 Like
456

Dissents are the losers.

Did I quote sotomayer?

The winners are the only things that matter.

Allan

457

image

In this case, when an unelected body [Health and Human Services] omnipotently exercises legislative, judicial and executive authority, as was done in this case, the losers are the American people, and the winners are those engaging in tyranny.

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Why have a Congress of the United States if an unelected body is free to judge, legislate and pass law?

Why are you so agreeable with an act of a government agency which violates fundamental guarantees and protections written into our Constitution?

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

458

The losing argument. It’s okay to lose once in a while.

Yours was the minority opinion.

Allan

459

image

The Minority’s opinion, which can be found HERE was in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

While the majority’s opinion engaged in judicial tyranny and trampled upon the fundamental rights of healthcare workers as shown HERE, in addition to negating the people’s guaranteed right to a “Republican Form of Government” in which elected representatives, and only the people’s elected representatives are authorized to enact legislation, which is explained HERE, the majority’s opinion imposed its personal feelings as the rule of law and violated its oath to support and defend “this Constitution”.

In fact, the majority opinion by giving a green light to an unelected body to exercise executive, judicial and legislative powers meet the very definition of tyranny as stated by James Madision:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

Why have a Congress of the United States if an unelected body is free to judge, legislate and pass law?

Why are so many agreeable, including you, with an act of a government agency which violates fundamental guarantees and protections written into our Constitution?

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.