Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Supreme Court Justices Need Recusal!

I read about this case before the Supreme Court. The news stated that all 9 Supreme Court justices have been "vaccinated" and had all required boosters for this fake Covid pandemic virus.

So, this is publicly disclosed that all 9 justices have sided with the propaganda that they need the "vaccine" and boosters to stay healthy and not contaminate others with the virus. (Which these "vaccines" obviously do not do!)

So, how can any of them be "Impartial" and judge this important case about vaccine mandates affecting the entire country and economy without their personal beliefs affecting their decisions if they have all already sided with the propaganda that has been spread?

They are all affected by conflict of interest and should recuse themselves!!

This is what any legal interpretation normally would recommend. But, rules don't apply anymore. They are making things up as they go. And, if they all recused themselves for this conflict of interest, who would we have to actually decide a Supreme Court case?

Also, why are our Supreme Court justices disclosing personal health information that sways public opinion about their impartiality??

No one has discussed these points before. They won't, either!

Hold on- I keep hearing from Rickt300, szihn, bustem, ribka and rifleguy that this sort of thing just doesnt happen in the USA

If they CHOSE to take the jab, that's their choice. This is about MANDATES.

I believe they were allowed to “decide” whether to get the jab. Possibly they talked to their doctor and decided that getting the jabs was the best decision for them. I heard that other non Supreme Court judges have done that.
My understanding is the case before the court is whether the president can mandate the jab.

This is still a conflict of interest that should cause, normally, recusal. You can make excuses but the optics are important in judicial hearings and this kind of conflict can certainly affect someone's decisions even if you think they can decide the case without prejudice. It's just the way it is. Same kind of thing where a woman who has had an abortion deciding on the legality of allowing or restricting abortions. It can affect someone personally enough to alter their "legal" interpretation.

This is not about the President mandating anything, it is about OSHA doing that. Huge difference.

This is SJW style nonsense. The same thinking that has 3 women on SCOTUS.

OSHA-POTUS, same same. All commies.

You got that right.

What is SJW?

What is SJW?


Social Justice Warrior

Don't let being dumb as a stump keep you from posting.

I took the vaccine and the booster but I'm fiercely against mandates.

Nah just fire most of them and start over.

If lawyers were choosing jurors for an important case, would they both want to choose people who all made the same choice as the case was trying to decide? No, they would try to get about half who had not been vaccinated, in this case, and half who had been vaccinated. That would at least give the case equal grounding in the people debating and deciding the outcome. Actions speak loudly aside from just promising to be impartial.

In a perfect world, or Supreme Court here, the justices would be able to separate their personal choices from the legal decision they were rendering. It is not a perfect world.

This

I understand that this is about mandates but most of the politicians are about control and money. The money is behind the mandates. Fauci is about money in his pocket and he has never felt so powerful before since so many people hang on every word he utters. Unbelievable.

If the politicians didn't have their mandates, how many people would not have gotten the jab? How many people would still be working at their jobs?

I hope and pray that the Supreme Court justices do decide this from a legal perspective and not personal bias. The main point I am making is that the optics in cases like this often cause recusal of judges in lower courts. Doesn't seem to apply here.

Your argument doesn't hold water about recusal.

Should the ones that got a vaccine of any sort recuse themselves as well?

How about car accidents... If a judge has been involved in a car accident, should they recuse themselves from presiding over car accident litigation?

We pretty much know how all of them vote. The commie ones are real easy to predict. All liberals act, vote, and think like all the others. Sheep, one and all, no matter their station in life.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who trust a panel of people to hand down rulings on a document they couldn't care less about.

I think the politicians are trying to hand the ball off to the unelected bureaucrats so there is not blow back at election time. OSHA does not come up for vote, they are immune from scrutiny by the public. The President and Schumer/Pelosi et al can raise their hands and say, "Hey, don't blame me, it was a safety thingie"...

Shrewd if you ask me. OSHA is charged with safety in the workplace, Dems didn't do it.

That’s like saying since they all drive cars, they shouldn’t be able to adjudicate any case involving the auto industry.