Still the majority your boy kavanugh flipped.
The opinion made total sense.
Thank you kavanugh and Roberts.
Oh yeah Carlson called kavanaugh a liberal. Lol
Allan
No. One is a mandate to protect vulnerable, at elevated risk, people who are at the mercy of those who control their environs. The other is a mandate to achieve a political goal of meeting an arbitrary percent of vaccinated people in America. Clearly, the SCOTUS can see the difference, why can’t you?
Assuming he meant progressive for a SCOTUS justice, that idiot may be correct.
Kavanaugh was a bad pick.
Narrative talking pts.
1 Like
he’s a bushie. better than roberts, better than garland or anybody obama appointed. but not as good as thomas, alito et al.
1 Like
Aka the truth.
There is a difference.
2 SCOTUS justices can see it, why can’t you.
Allan
What is that case really about?
Keep in mind what Justice Thomas stated in his dissent which can be found HERE
“These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal. I respectfully dissent.”
In fact, the majority opinion by giving a green light to an unelected body [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] to exercise executive, judicial and law-making 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.
1 Like
It’s a dissent, John and carries no weight.
Allan
So, instead of offering a rebuttal to the particulars of my post and explain the error in the quote I posted from Justice Thomas’s dissent, which I imagine there must be since you dismiss his dissent as being irrelevant, you decide to deflect from the most important responsibility which has been placed in the hands of our Supreme Court Justices . . . the obligation to defend “this Constitution”, and only those laws made in pursuance thereof.
Seems to me the primary purpose of you posting in this thread is to agitate, instigate and berate those who work to defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
JWK
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? ______ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
1 Like
It wrong thinking John.
You can beat a dead horse with dissents or you can accept that in this instance HHS mandates are constitutional.
It’s over.
OSHA vax mandates unconstitutional.
HHS vax mandates constitutional.
It’s quite clear.
Allan
no, its not. one stay granted because the agency issuing the mandate lacks either constitutional or congressional authority and the case is moot. one stay denied and the case continues. no constitutional issues were decided.
1 Like
You nailed it. 
No. It is not clear, and you continue to avoid offering a rebuttal showing why the HHS vax mandate is within the delegated powers vested in our federal government,
-
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 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
What about the SCOTUS HHS opinion is not clear?
It’s crystal clear.
HHS vax mandate is constitutional.
Allan
Lol. You are not good at reading between the lines, are you?
Allan
Your above response confirms you are here to agitate, instigate and berate those who work to defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text. The fact is the answer to your above question was already provided HERE and instead of addressing its specific content you deflected with a wisecrack.
JWK
What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
1 Like
It’s not berating your minority opinion, just stating that it is indeed a minority opinion.
It’s crystal clear you are not accepting of the courts opinion on the HHS vax mandate.
It’s a done deal.
Allan
you mean the way you read between the lines when you declared they wouldn’t take it up? or when you declared hey’d uphold it based on previously denying emergency stays in other cases? the only thing between the lines is space.
5 Likes
And you, who embraces the ruling, have deflected from defending the legitimacy of the Majority’s reasoning for giving a green light to an unelected government agency to impose such a sweeping and extraordinary mandate which infringes upon healthcare workers’ fundamental rights.
All you do is agitate, instigate and deflect, and offer nothing of value to a discussion concerning whether or not the Majority’s opinion fits withing the four wall of our Constitution.
JWK
1 Like
Don’t pretend that I haven’t been right over the 20 years of posting history at hannity.
Win some, lose some.
Allan
