wrong, its been pointed out over and over again that scotus has determined tere is a right to refuse medical treatment, that exercizing that right is a choice, and asked which other rights invoke penalties when exercized.
your answer has been, over and over again…
abject denial of reality using the same mindless mantra over and over again.
And that case is outdated. Since that case, our judicial system has evolved and now protects fundamental rights of the people, and whenever a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government act, and the individual asserts that right, the government action is viewed by the court as being “presumptively unconstitutional”, and to overcome that presumption, the government’s action must survive 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.
What on earth is the motivation of those who do not embrace and demand the protection of strict scrutiny to be observed and enforced?
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, is now their worst nightmare.
lol… you have no idea. the injunction was denied because redress can be had through trial. no need for an emergency injunction. their denial has naught to do with whether or not the case will succeed.
If I were to exercise my 1st Amendment right of free speech and were to choose to bad mouth Mr. Hannity (which I wouldn’t do, this is just an example), I would be banned (the penalty) for violating the TOS for this privately owned social media site.
The penalty would be fully justified as this is a private site and the owners have right of property.
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.