|
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29
Campfire Greenhorn
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29 |
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!
Last edited by Whig; 01/08/22.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 808
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 808 |
Hold on- I keep hearing from Rickt300, szihn, bustem, ribka and rifleguy that this sort of thing just doesnt happen in the USA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,215
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,215 |
If they CHOSE to take the jab, that's their choice. This is about MANDATES.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,774
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,774 |
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.
NRA Patron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29
Campfire Greenhorn
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3 |
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 not about the President mandating anything, it is about OSHA doing that. Huge difference.
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,709 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,709 Likes: 5 |
This is SJW style nonsense. The same thinking that has 3 women on SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,144 Likes: 4
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17,144 Likes: 4 |
OSHA-POTUS, same same. All commies.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 4,285 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2021
Posts: 4,285 Likes: 1 |
OSHA-POTUS, same same. All commies. You got that right.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29
Campfire Greenhorn
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,556
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,556 |
What is SJW?
Social Justice Warrior
Last edited by bobinpa; 01/08/22.
I sure could go for some $2.50/gal gas and a mean tweet!
NRA Benefactor member, disgruntled. Life member: Firearms Owners Against Crime. Life member: GOA Member: RMEF
TRUMP 2020
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,563 Likes: 17
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 26,563 Likes: 17 |
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!
Don't let being dumb as a stump keep you from posting.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,444
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,444 |
I took the vaccine and the booster but I'm fiercely against mandates.
A 380 in my pocket is better than a 45 in my truck!
Violence may not be the best option... but it's still an option.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mad Dog Mattis
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 12,032 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 12,032 Likes: 2 |
Nah just fire most of them and start over.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29
Campfire Greenhorn
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,820 Likes: 9
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,820 Likes: 9 |
If they CHOSE to take the jab, that's their choice. This is about MANDATES. This
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29
Campfire Greenhorn
|
OP
Campfire Greenhorn
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 29 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,653 Likes: 14
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 69,653 Likes: 14 |
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.
Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,412 Likes: 3 |
OSHA-POTUS, same same. All commies. 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.
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.-Richard Henry Lee
Endowment Member NRA, Life Member SAF-GOA, Life-Board Member, West TN Director TFA
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,076
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 16,076 |
That’s like saying since they all drive cars, they shouldn’t be able to adjudicate any case involving the auto industry.
|
|
|
|
92 members (2500HD, 1_deuce, 10gaugemag, 300_savage, 2ndwind, 15 invisible),
1,551
guests, and
921
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,242
Posts18,485,919
Members73,967
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|