Latest news on NYC’s vaccine mandate

Politics
21

Now you are making stuff up! The SCOTUS did not give any “okay”.

In fact, yesterday, 12/13/2021, the Supreme Court denied injunctive relief to stop New York’s Vaccine Mandate for Health Care Workers which does not contain religious exemptions. The ruling gave no reason for not giving injunctive relief one way or the other, nor did it remark on the protection of “strict scrutiny” in cases where fundamental rights are infringed upon by government actions.

Here is a LINK to the ruling and dissenting opinions.

With regard to New York ignoring the protection of “strict scrutiny” and imposing an authoritarian approach in dealing with the COVID outbreak, I suggest those interested in preserving our fundamental rights study Justice GORSUCH’s dissenting opinion in which he wrote:

“But even where such overt animus is lacking, laws that impose burdens on religious exercises must still be both neutral toward religion and generally applicable or survive strict scrutiny. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993). To meet its burden under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Id., at 531–532. Applying these principles to this case, New York’s mandate falters at each step.”

JWK

“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

22

Just like they gave the okay to the Texas abortion bill.

Allan

23

Dissenting views go to file 13 like sotomayor’s did in the Texas abortion case.

Don’t you know how SCOTUS works?

Dissents are a dime a dozen.

The only thing that matter is that no modification was made to the NYC healthcare worker vax mandate.

No modifications.

It will proceed as is.

Allan

24

"Bloomberg) – A state judge temporarily blocked New York City’s Covid vaccine requirement of municipal workers for a Police Department detective who sued the city.

In a hearing Tuesday, State Supreme Court Justice Frank Nervo granted a temporary restraining order requested by Detective Anthony Marciano, who sued Mayor Bill de Blasio on Dec. 1 on behalf of himself and others “similarly situated.”

JWK

25

:roll_eyes:

You posted that case to distract attention from the NYC vaccine mandate which is the subject of the thread.

JWK

26

California student seeks strict scrutiny protection from Supreme Court in vaccine mandate case

California Student Who Sued San Diego School District Appeals To Supreme Court To Intervene, Cites Religious Exemptions
DEC. 13th, 2021

“The San Diego Unified School District seems to believe that medical reasons, secular status, concerns about FDA approval, administrative convenience, and accommodation of adult consciences are important enough to justify allowing unvaccinated individuals to come to school,” Jeffrey Trissell, an attorney representing the Scripps Ranch student, said in a statement. “Yet a student with sincere religious beliefs is treated harshly and banned from in-person class and athletics. That discriminatory treatment triggers strict scrutiny under the free exercise clause.”

Keep in mind “strict scrutiny” protection apply in cases where a government act infringes upon a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, in which case the act must comply with the strict scrutiny test:

(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.

Also keep in mind 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)

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

JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story

27

It is a NYC mandate, just not this one.

Allan

28

I don’t believe the “Strongly held religious belief” against this particular vaccine.

If the complaint is derived from development using a fetal stem cell line… then there are almost no drugs that are ethical to use.

If this person has taken a Tums then they have used a treatment tested on fetal stem cells.

29

Irrelevant.

30

Also conflates testing with development. It’s like saying hey, we poured fetal stem cells on steaks, now you whacky right to lifers can’t eat it any more.

31

The complaint is that the vaccines were, as per the lawsuit, “either manufactured or tested using material derived from stem cell lines from aborted fetuses.”

That is almost all of modern medicine.

The only person I would would believe has that religious conviction is someone who is an adherent to Christian Science.

34

Stop making stuff up. We only need to apply the protections of “strict scrutiny” !

Keep in mind “strict scrutiny” protection applies in cases where a government act infringes upon a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, in which case the act must comply with the strict scrutiny test:

(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.

Also keep in mind 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)

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

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

35
Mod Note

No Godwin’s Law

37

I am not making stuff up.

I just don’t believe them when the religious conviction is HEK-293 fetal cells for the testing of a vaccine when the exact same thing is true for Advil.

The same is true for Aspirin.

How about Ivermectin? Is there a religious conviction on that? That was tested on the same fetal cell line as the vaccine.

If they were consistent… then fine.

But they really aren’t.

38

Yes. You are making stuff up. You asserted “we will have to get rid of every single vaccine mandate ever.”.

The truth is, as I pointed out to you and you ignored . . . .We only need to apply the protections of “strict scrutiny” !

JWK

It is absolutely shameful that those in our mainstream media and Hollywood crowd, having achieved fame, fortune and great success under a free market, free enterprise system, now work to destroy that system and impose a notoriously evil, Cuban style government, on America’s future generations.

39

No… I didn’t say that.

I said that if the religious conviction against using medicines tested with HEK-293 fetal cell lines then that religious conviction would have to apply to almost all of modern medicine.

Other medications tested on the same fetal cell line. Maalox. Pepto Bismol, Hydroxychloroquine, Albuterol, Lidocaine.

It is quite a list.

40

You specificallywrote:

"Then we will have to get rid of every single vaccine mandate ever.

Say hello again to completely preventable diseases."

That is not true. Our judicial system needs to apply the protection of strict scrutiny to specific mandates.

JWK

41

Oh yeah… if we were to apply the Nuremburg codes to vaccine mandates like some claim that we should to Covid vaccines then we would have to get rid of all vaccine mandates.

Do that… say hello to measles again. Say hello to pertussis. Say hello to a ton of preventable diseases that we don’t have around anymore.

42

And, as I previously pointed out to your above assertion, if instead we simply applied our judicial system’s protection of strict scrutiny to specific mandates, we wouldn’t have to say “hello again to completely preventable diseases.” Do you agree?

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.

43

I one mandate is unjust… then why not all mandates?

If a vaccine for Covid cannot be mandated, then how can a vaccine for Mumps be required?