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.
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.
This is SJW style nonsense. The same thinking that has 3 women on SCOTUS.
OSHA-POTUS, same same. All commies.
OSHA-POTUS, same same. All commies.
You got that right.
What is SJW?
Social Justice Warrior
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.
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.
If they CHOSE to take the jab, that's their choice. This is about MANDATES.
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.
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.
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.
That’s like saying since they all drive cars, they shouldn’t be able to adjudicate any case involving the auto industry.
Nah just fire most of them and start over.
Can we keep Thomas ?
kwg
My understanding is the case before the court is whether the president can mandate the jab.
I thought that it had already been decided that the President doesn’t have the power to mandate??? And that the court is now looking at the administrations “Reach Around” technique of using OSHA as a bypass????
Nah just fire most of them and start over.
Can we keep Thomas ?
kwg
Alito did a far better job of arguing the Constructional side than the lawyers did. Lets keep him too.
Biden is using osha mandates to do his dirty work . The propaganda hit a wall and people left unjabbed were
rejecting getting the jab. He doesn’t have constitutional authority (not that the constitution means anything today) , Congress would have to write the law.
What I heard on the live stream and the questions asked by the justices, I believe they drank the koolaid and will allow the mandates. The stumble block was what happens when tests can’t keep up with demand.
IMO they already accepted osha’s Authority to mandate the jab.
If they are going to publicly disclose their vaccine status, there should be an equal number of vaccinated and unvaccinated judges to keep it equal. Again, it shouldn't matter in a perfect world but we know that judges and jurists are often swayed in their decisions by their personal beliefs.
Just saying that the optics are bad and makes them seem biased and not impartial, as they should be under any circumstances.
Their vaccine status really should not have been disclosed!
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'm warming up to recusal. The federal employees were mandated first. Difficult to see how they could be impartial. I found it interesting that informed consent for a vaccine that isn't open sourced, wasn't argued. This is a "for profit" medication. Regardless, we witnessed in real time, how uniformed the SCOTUS really is. Before we argue about the mandates, show us the contracts the DoD signed with big pharma. Considering how well past vaccines performed, these Covid "vaccines" should be sent back and taxpayers reimbursed.
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!
The fact that the justices believe vaccination was prudent for them is no evidence whatsoever that they think a federal vaccine mandate is constitutional, though clearly the left-leaning ones do. There are two extremes here which are equally wrong. The first is the belief that everyone should be forced to be vaccinated and the second extreme (and equally wrong) view is that people who choose to be vaccinated have somehow bought into a fake Covid propaganda narrative. No doubt, lots of false propaganda out there, but CV-19 is real and if a person decides vaccination is the best course for them, they should be permitted to make that decision without a public flogging.
I took the vaccine and the booster but I'm fiercely against mandates.
Ditto.. It must be a personal choice, PERIOD!
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!
The fact that the justices believe vaccination was prudent for them is no evidence whatsoever that they think a federal vaccine mandate is constitutional, though clearly the left-leaning ones do. There are two extremes here which are equally wrong. The first is the belief that everyone should be forced to be vaccinated and the second extreme (and equally wrong) view is that people who choose to be vaccinated have somehow bought into a fake Covid propaganda narrative. No doubt, lots of false propaganda out there, but CV-19 is real and if a person decides vaccination is the best course for them, they should be permitted to make that decision without a public flogging.
Anyone that took the vaccination did so on good faith. They assumed the risk/benefit was in their favor. Truth of the matter, citizens are suing the FDA in hopes of learning wtf Pfizer sold us.
First batch of FOIA documents released by FDA about Pfizer’s covid vaccines shows 1,223 DEATHS already reported in early February 2021
https://yournews.com/2021/12/05/2261844/first-batch-of-foia-documents-released-by-fda-about-pfizers/Pfizer did the studies. They had full custody of the data and the analysis following. Now, for some reason, taxpayers have to sue the FDA for that information. How can anyone claim informed consent laws have been satisfied?
Nah just fire most of them and start over.
With Biden, Harris, Pelosi appoitees???????
My guess is the SCOTUS folks didnt go to the corner CVS and get the commoners jabs
I honestly don't think that most politicians got the poison jab, regardless what they said. They know what it really is (NOT a vaccine) and why they want to force everyone to get it! (Totalitarian control.)
States rights - the sovereign states have the RIGHT to tell PedoBiden to shove his mandate up his backside.
I honestly don't think that most politicians got the poison jab, regardless what they said. They know what it really is (NOT a vaccine) and why they want to force everyone to get it! (Totalitarian control.)
You are most likely absolutely correct.
"Kagan quickly added her own rejoinder to Alito: "Can I just say that regulators think of risk/risk tradeoffs constantly when they make regulations ... but one risk vastly outweighs another risk.""
This is not about the President mandating anything, it is about OSHA doing that. Huge difference.
Bull-fu^cking schitt.........................this is 100% Biden & his minions call & directive; OSHA is just the vehicle for delivering the huge load of horseschitt upon the 'Mer'can public.
Fu^ck Joe Biden.
NN
States rights - the sovereign states have the RIGHT to tell PedoBiden to shove his mandate up his backside.
This is how we get out of this miserable situation.
For the most part, states have pretty much given away most of their rights to the feds; lots harder to get something back than to have never let it go in the 1st place.
Just sayin'.
MM
If they are going to publicly disclose their vaccine status, there should be an equal number of vaccinated and unvaccinated judges to keep it equal. Again, it shouldn't matter in a perfect world but we know that judges and jurists are often swayed in their decisions by their personal beliefs.
Just saying that the optics are bad and makes them seem biased and not impartial, as they should be under any circumstances.
Their vaccine status really should not have been disclosed!
dude you need to start boiling your drinking water
They're bought and paid for like all the politicians. They will pretty much side with the commies from now on.
Time to water the tree.
They're bought and paid for like all the politicians. They will pretty much side with the commies from now on.
Time to water the tree.
Absolutely’
Hold on- I keep hearing from Rickt300, szihn, bustem, ribka and rifleguy that this sort of thing just doesnt happen in the USA
Bullschitt you long haired hippy schithead! I have been outspoken about how sold out our government is. At least they are not beating us in the streets for protesting getting vaxxed.
Anyone have a good used and quite dirty rope? Be Well, RZ.
Hold on- I keep hearing from Rickt300, szihn, bustem, ribka and rifleguy that this sort of thing just doesnt happen in the USA
Bullschitt you long haired hippy schithead! I have been outspoken about how sold out our government is. At least they are not beating us in the streets for protesting getting vaxxed.
You need to protest first before you can get beaten in the street for protesting.
And if your government is so sold out, what are you doing wasting time posting here anyway? Less being ''outspoken'' on the internet, more action tough guy. As you advise other nations do.
You’re an idiot. Have you not listened to the reports on Fox? The Dems are siding towards upholding mandate, Republicans are leaning against.
The states have states rights but have gladly "waived" their sovereign rights to the federal government because the feds hold the purse strings and will quickly stop payments of billions to those states that don't tow the line!
Look what Biden is doing to Florida- with holding life saving medications (monoclonal antibody treatments) because the governor has the gull to make his own decisions about how he wants to run the state.
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??
Not necessarily
No one has discussed these points before. They won't, either!
Well, not necessarily. I'm 73, good health, supplementally (zinc, etc). enhanced. I've been 3X jabbed and boostered, mostly to get my wife off my back (yes I am - at 73, and 40+ years of marriage). I don't think she's right tho.... :), and the course of least resistence to travel (Africa a few weeks ago, Mexico in a few). So I am a test subject - big deal. - it will be years before things sift out. And maybe, considering the state of affairs, we may never know. The anti-vaxxers are every bit as rabid as the other side (tho I tend to think it's goofy as hell that way myself).
I'm old, can die from many things, so fug it. It should be a personal choice, and that's where I am- you suggest it should be different for SC?
Not that they aren't a compromised .gov agency. I can't do anything about it.
Bottom line? IDGAF.
This decision will be made on the basis of emotion & politics, period.
It will not in any way be relative to whether OSHA really has the authority to imposed this mandate.
There are 4 judges that will surely vote to uphold the mandate; all that is needed for that to end up being the majority is for any one of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett to go along.................Roberts will be in full coercion mode & twisting arms on this.
All of those 3 are weak kneed & have already demonstrated their ability to be swayed & I don't trust any of them.
This mandate will stand; then what mandate will be next for the Sheeple.
As for enforcement, the employers will handle that, unless too many run out of workers.
MM
Well, not necessarily. I'm 73, good health, supplementally (zinc, etc). enhanced. I've been 3X jabbed and boostered, mostly to get my wife off my back (yes I am - at 73, and 40+ years of marriage). I don't think she's right tho.... :), and the course of least resistence to travel (Africa a few weeks ago, Mexico in a few). So I am a test subject - big deal. - it will be years before things sift out. And maybe, considering the state of affairs, we may never know. The anti-vaxxers are every bit as rabid as the other side (tho I tend to think it's goofy as hell that way myself).
I'm old, can die from many things, so fug it. It should be a personal choice, and that's where I am- you suggest it should be different for SC?
Not that they aren't a compromised .gov agency. I can't do anything about it.
Bottom line? IDGAF.
Your post is pretty much the root of the problem. The whole thing reads ""I, I, Me, I, Me and IDGAF"
Your an older guy who has lived his life, but your complying so you get a few more africa trips in. Meanwhile the next generation is going to get a tax and inflation bill that could have anything from recession to great depression on it .Not to mention they could be warring with their own government to avoid vaccine mandates just to work. Thats worth resisting right there.
People with grey hair(and I include myself should have been the ones saying keep the economy open right when this started, accepting a higher risk of dying for the kids. That generation has no problems sending kids into warzones when the shoe is on the other foot.
For sure my generation FAILED!!!! We should be ashamed!!!
The only thing we owed the next generations is to hand them the country we inherited, or better. (And no not biden’s Better)
The question is when does 1776 v 2.0 happen.