The thread is concerned with a government action in case you missed it.
I think the Union lawyers have sold out the rank and file by avoided invoking the strict scrutiny protection in answer to a government action which violates a fundamental right of every NYC teacher involved.
JWK
Why would SCOTUS reject an emergency appeal?
They want to let it go though regular channels and it is not an emergency.
Obviously.
Allan
I see you are projecting again. 
you confused about the difference between the government and private business?
The reason they didn’t bring it up was because they knew it was a losing argument.
Allan
Thank you for your opinion but it seems pretty clear the Union Lawyers representing NYC teachers, more than likely sold them out and pretended to be fighting for their rights. And, your opinion is refuted by:
DARRIS FRIEND V CITY OF GAINESVILLE . . . Case No. 01-2021-CA-2412, where the Court has issued an injunction against the mandate.
Here is a LINK to the injunction, part of which reads:
The City’s Vaccine Mandate requires City employees to receive a complete dose of the COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccinations are administered through intramuscular 3 injection. The City’s Vaccine Mandate requires a compulsory vaccination procedure that can reasonably be considered a form of medical treatment and/or a medical procedure, and thus, this mandate implicates the City employees’ fundamental right to privacy.
*If a challenged law implicates Florida’s right to privacy, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way —also known as the “strict scrutiny” standard. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1252-1253 (Fla. 2017); see also, Green v. Alachua County, 2021 WL 2387983 at 3.
This “strict scrutiny” standard applies equally to constitutional challenges in instances when the government seeks to enforce laws, and also, in instances when the government employer seeks to enforce workplace policies. See City of N. Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1995).
If the government fails to put on evidence of its compelling state interest, as the City failed to do here, the Court is not required to (and, in fact, cannot) make factual findings that the government has any compelling state interest. Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *3 (“When the government fails to offer evidence to demonstrate a compelling state interest, the trial court then is absolved of having to make any finding to that effect”). In the instant case, the City failed to put on any evidence that the Vaccine Mandate serves a compelling state interest or that the Vaccine Mandate was the least restrictive means to accomplish that interest.
The City’s Vaccine Mandate facially interferes with its employees’ right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and/or procedures, implicates Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy, and is “presumptively unconstitutional.” Gainesville Woman Care, LLC., 210 So. 3d at 1245; and Green, 2021 WL 2387983 at *5.
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
NYC isn’t in Florida (last I heard)
From the link you provided.
“At the Hearing, the Plaintiffs (who are City employees) argued that the Vaccine
Mandate facially implicates their right to privacy under the Florida Constitution, Article I, § 23”
Allan
See: Rivers v. Katz (67 N.Y.2d 485) 1986, a New York State Court of Appeals decision, to establish a fundamental right was being infringed upon by the NYC vaccine mandate. In the case the Court stated:
” In Storar, we recognized that a patient’s right to determine the course of his medical treatment was paramount to what might otherwise be the doctor’s obligation to provide medical care, and that the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment must be honored, even though the recommended treatment may be beneficial or even necessary to preserve the patient’s life. This fundamental common-law right is coextensive with the patient’s liberty interest protected by the due process clause of our State Constitution.
In our system of a free government, where notions of individual autonomy and free choice are cherished, it is the individual who must have the final say in respect to decisions regarding his medical treatment in order to insure that the greatest possible protection is accorded his autonomy and freedom from unwanted interference with the furtherance of his own… ”
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
There is no medical treatment being forced upon the individual rather a choice by a vax mandate.
As you shall see in upcoming cases.
I guess we shall wait and see whose argument judges buy…
Allam
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
just making more ■■■■ up. you have know idea why. your assumptions are not facts
that is not what you said was obvious
do this or face punishment is force.
10/13/21
See Federal judge rules in favor of health care workers seeking religious exemption to vaccine mandate
“A federal judge in New York granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday in favor of 17 health care workers applying for religious exemptions to the state’s COVID-19 mandate.”
In the MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER we find:
“Finally, plaintiffs have established at this early stage of the litigation that § 2.61 is likely to fail strict scrutiny. To satisfy strict scrutiny, defendants must show that the challenged law advances “interests of the highest order” and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve those interests. Fulton v. City of Phila., Pa., 141 S. Ct. 1868, 1881 (2021) (quoting City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. at 546). “Put another way, so long as the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion, it must do so.” Id.”
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
It does force a choice, it does not force medical treatment.
Allan
JWK
We shall see how the courts rule.
Allan
well thats the thing about rights, the government can’t do that.
We shall see how the court rules.
It will all come out in the wash.
Allan
Heck, even in the outdated JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS case, the Court emphatically stated:
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
