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

which other rights invoke penalties if you choose to exercize them?

we’re not talking about private employers, we’re talking about a government mandate

1 Like

How can staying my opinion be construed as instigating.

Vax or penalty.

As it was in Jacobson.

Allan

It’s not a right.

Allan

refusing medical treatment is a right according to scotus. take it up with them

Stop making stuff up. This has already been addressed: LINK

Instigating and agitating is not welcomed.

JWK

just trolling

Jacobson clearly stated.

Vax or penalty.

Jacobson choose penalty.

Allan

Trolling. I gave my opinion.

You don’t like it, I understand.

Calling me a troll when it is clearly what I am not doing is not right.

You disagree with my opinion of vax or penalty of Jacobson SCOTUS opinion.

It’s okay. It’s a discussion board.

Allan

And once again. The choice is clear.

One of the choices is to refuse medical treatment as is your right.

No one is forcing you to get vaxxed if your choice is not to.

Allan

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.

trolling.

And that case is outdated.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.

which other rights invoke penalties when you choose to exercize them?

Which is why SCOTUS rejected the emergency appeal.

They obviously disagree with you take.

Allan

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 it is outdated why it still being used in court filings?

Allan

Your notion about choice has been refuted over and over …LINK

Why are you agitating and instigating, and refusing to engage in a dialogue?

JWK

The rejection was made without comment. There was nothing obvious about it. Stop making stuff up.

JWK

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.

WW

The thread is concerned with a government action in case you missed it.

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

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