The court said otherwise as I DOCUMENTED for you. Additionally:
JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS is outdated my friend!
JWK
Well? Are you going to respond with something useful?
JWK
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.
2 Likes
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.”
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
I know that you are. wondering that.
You would be wrong.
It doesn’t say what you think it says.
There is no fund
I did. You just don’t like the answer.
Allan
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
In every court case, 50% of the lawyers involved….lose.
1 Like
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
I comment directly.
You must be thinking of another poster.
Allan
And you asserted “It doesn’t say what you think it says” LINK, suggesting by innuendo I do not know how to read.
JWK
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
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
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
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
