Why the NYC teachers’ lawyers may be losing in the court .. vaccine mandate

johnwk2 · 2021-10-05T18:41:38.477Z

biggestal99:

The fundamental right not to be vaxxed. Lol.

There is no right being violated.

Allan

The court said otherwise as I DOCUMENTED for you. Additionally:

JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS is outdated my friend!

JWK

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T13:21:44.495Z

Well? Are you going to respond with something useful?

JWK

Jezcoe · 2021-10-06T13:38:16.653Z

Hung out with my NYC teacher buddy last night.

He has no problem with the mandate. He told me that since the start of school they have only seen one case and that if we can make it through the fall and winter without a rise in cases that means that the pandemic here is over.

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T13:50:26.414Z

With all the new COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths among the fully vaccinated occurring around the country, I’m wondering if the vaccine itself has something to do with these cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

See:

Mass. DPH reports 3,741 new breakthrough COVID-19 cases, 46 more deaths among vaccinated residents

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.”

Recent data shows 18.5% of new Covid-19 cases in New Jersey are fully vaccinated individuals, governor says

I think at this stage of the game it is pretty certain 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.

JWK

Jezcoe · 2021-10-06T14:07:16.055Z

johnwk2:

I’m wondering if the vaccine itself has something to do with these cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

I know that you are. wondering that.

You would be wrong.

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T14:53:26.193Z

johnwk2:

The court said otherwise as I DOCUMENTED for you. Additionally:

JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS is outdated my friend!

JWK

It doesn’t say what you think it says.

There is no fund

johnwk2:

Well? Are you going to respond with something useful?

JWK

I did. You just don’t like the answer.

Allan

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T15:12:58.563Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

The court said otherwise as I DOCUMENTED for you. Additionally:

JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS is outdated my friend!

JWK

It doesn’t say what you think it says.

So, you have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. Instead you post an insulting remark.

JWK

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T15:17:41.859Z

johnwk2:

So, you have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. Instead you post an insulting remark.

JWK

That’s not an insult but my opinion.

The opinion cited doesn’t say what you think it says.

No personal offense or malice intended.

I cited my opinion. You cited yours. It’s a discussion board

Allan

Steel-W0LF · 2021-10-06T15:24:27.047Z

PurpnGold:

Ben_Natuf:

“they” were not involved. you’re not “reading between the lines”, you’re reading tea leaves.

seriously… get your money back

Fascinating that a non lawyer continues to say this to an actual lawyer… and be consistently wrong. Over and over.

In every court case, 50% of the lawyers involved….lose.

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T17:30:27.023Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

So, you have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. Instead you post an insulting remark.

JWK

That’s not an insult but my opinion.

The opinion cited doesn’t say what you think it says.

No personal offense or malice intended.

I cited my opinion. You cited yours. It’s a discussion board

Allan

So, you really have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. It is quite clear you are here to instigate and agitate.

JWK

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T19:25:46.818Z

johnwk2:

So, you really have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. It is quite clear you are here to instigate and agitate.

JWK

I did I offered my opinions as always.

You don’t like my opinions.

Join the rest of the pack.

Allan

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T19:33:25.912Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

So, you really have no intention to engage in a productive discussion. It is quite clear you are here to instigate and agitate.

JWK

I did I offered my opinions as always.

You don’t like my opinions.

Join the rest of the pack.

Allan

You asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.

Once again you show your intention is not to engage in a productive discussion.

JWK

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T20:04:08.727Z

johnwk2:

You asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” suggesting by innuendo

I comment directly.

You must be thinking of another poster.

Allan

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T20:19:13.679Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

You asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” suggesting by innuendo

I comment directly.

And you asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” LINK, suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.

JWK

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T20:27:56.724Z

johnwk2:

And you asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” LINK, suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.

And did you read that I meant no personal offense.

Allan

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T20:44:00.262Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

And you asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” LINK, suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.

And did you read that I meant no personal offense.

Allan

Your post explicitly indicates I do not know how to read. So tell me, is JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS not outdated since it was issued before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right?

If not, then why?

JWK

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T20:59:31.030Z

johnwk2:

Your post explicitly indicates I do not know how to read. So tell me, is JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS not outdated since it was issued before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right?

If not, then why?

JWK

You are missing the point of the opinion. Misreading it.

That’s my opinion.

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

It’s okay, I will be right in the end however.

All vax mandates are constitutional.

Allan

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T21:05:00.058Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

Your post explicitly indicates I do not know how to read. So tell me, is JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS not outdated since it was issued before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right?

If not, then why?

JWK

You are missing the point of the opinion. Misreading it.

The opinion is outdated as I pointed out. Exactly what am I allegedly “misreading” about the opinion?

JWK

biggestal99 · 2021-10-06T21:07:18.641Z

johnwk2:

The opinion is outdated as I pointed out. Exactly what am I allegedly “misreading” about the opinion?

JWK

vax mandates are allowed under the constitution.

You are saying that they aren’t based upon that opinion.

They are…

Allan

johnwk2 · 2021-10-06T21:11:13.040Z

biggestal99:

johnwk2:

The opinion is outdated as I pointed out. Exactly what am I allegedly “misreading” about the opinion?

JWK

vax mandates are allowed under the constitution.

You are saying that they aren’t based upon that opinion.

I stated no such thing.

What I wrote was:

A one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not “narrowly tailored” to achieve the government’s purpose __ a purpose which in this case must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning ___ and does not use the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny, e.g. see: Judge blocks Western Michigan’s vaccine mandate for athletes (religionnews.com)

JWK