• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

US Supreme Court BLOCKS vaccine mandates

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
Listen clown, the time for your games and the rules that you created for them is past.
Lol, I didn't create the rules. The Supreme Court created the Ashwander rules, so if you are going to appeal to them, you should know them. It's their court.
You can continue to ramble about your fantasy world where men create rules that justify forced injections,
I did no such thing. It's certainly not "my fantasy world." Again, I am going by precedent set by the government and Supreme Court.

Also, nothing here is talking about "forcing" anyone to do anything. This is a free country, and includes the right to contract unlimited. This is something you would understand if you read the Constitution (something you should do), as it's clearly stated in Article 1, section 10, clause 1.
and continue to be an apologist for those men, because there are other games that people play where men hunt other men.
Complete non-sequiter.

Again, no one has been "forced" to take an injection, not in the United States of America. I have heard of no one being tied down and forced against their will to take this. In the case of the Demonvax, everyone freely enters into and signs a contract in order to get the injection. As an example-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGiPdTMC9kg&t=4s


If you don't like the terms of employment that your employer is presenting (whatever the origin), then you always have the right to quit, or negotiate other terms.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
Fair enough, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch didn't see it as being that simple.
Agree. Truthfully, no case is ever as simple as I broke it down. However, that has to be the precedent at the heart of the decision, and the distinction between the 6-3 and 5-4 results.
As Thomas points out in the dissent, this isn't requiring people to wash their hands or don PPE. This is requiring them to be injected with a potentially life altering ( or ending) drug.
Sure, but why aren't there similar lawsuits about other vaccine requirements? Even though these so called vaccines are far more dangerous than others, even the flu shot is potentially life altering or ending. As Anthony Colpo pointed out in his article on how the Covid shots were up to 96x more dangerous than Flu Shots (written in March of 2021), the Flu Shot campaigns of 2018 and 2019 still had 17 and 22 deaths reported to VAERS. I don't believe this lawsuit was challenging every vaccine requirement in any job.
But if COVID is not even real, as you like to point out, then it's not unreasonable to question the legitimacy of this"safety" requirement even if the government has the authority to set conditions for receiving Medicare Medicaid money.
Agree with this as well, but I don't think this was the focus of this particular lawsuit. I think there is a very solid case to be made for opposing any regulation for healthcare workers to get this shot (whether it comes from government or the employer) based on the precedent set in Doe vs. Rumsfeld, which I don't believe was even brought up in this case.

I think there is also a suit to be made questioning the usage of PCR tests, counting of deaths, and even the so called "isolates" of SARS-Cov-2 itself, as Tom Renz is doing, but that also wasn't brought up in this case.
 

Fred

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
319
The voluntary and semi-voluntary phase of vaccination is almost over. Expect the largest staged terror attack of all-time in the coming months. The goal will be to destroy civilization - no food at the store, no power, etc, and then provide government-run refuge with "free" food. But there will be a catch ... you have to get vaccinated to get the "free" stuff. This could be a sudden event like a nuclear attack, internet-destroying cyber attack, etc., which would clear the store shelves within hours (perhaps permanently), so don't assume you'll have time to prepare. Get storable food now.
 

Old Irenaeus

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
442
Again, no one has been "forced" to take an injection, not in the United States of America. I have heard of no one being tied down and forced against their will to take this. In the case of the Demonvax, everyone freely enters into and signs a contract in order to get the injection. As an example-
...

If you don't like the terms of employment that your employer is presenting (whatever the origin), then you always have the right to quit, or negotiate other terms.

Thankfully, as far as we know, no one in the United States has had a gun held to his/her head or been tied down and then forcibly injected with the demonvax against his/her will—thus far. Granted. If to force had a univocal meaning and designated only physical force, I would agree with you. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the verb force as 1. make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force; 2. make (someone) do something against their [sic] will. Taken in the second sense, I would argue that we are definitely seeing forced vaccination in the U.S. Let's say you are a native of Manhattan—I actually met such a person once. This is what you are dealing with: COVID-19: Vaccine Key to NYC - NYC Health. Either accept at least one jab of the demon vax or have your right to a normal existence revoked: no restaurants, no coffee shops, no opera, no concerts, no theatre, no gym, no yoga studio, no nightclub. (Granted life might be better minus some of these things.) Essentially, you can either live as an exile in your native place (get take out, never meet anyone indoors, etc.), or migrate, or cater and succumb to the "medicine." Maybe if you work very hard at it and are lucky you might be able to obtain some kind of exemption. Claiming that such a scenario does not involve force/coercion strikes me as ludicrous. It's not merely putting pressure on a person, to which he/she can respond by refusing to enter into such a contract. It's literally denying many of the mainstays that make life life. To me, it seems ridiculous to claim that such an individual is living in a "free country" and can do whatever he pleases.
 

Old Irenaeus

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
442
Reading about the supreme court’s ruling that Senile Joe’s attempt to dictate injections of unknown chemical substances into the bodies of all employees of businesses with more than 100 employees (Repeat after me: “Our Bodies, Our Choice!”) is a no go, one thing stood out. According to news reports, the court’s argument was that yes, Congress has given OSHA vast regulatory powers, but not this one.

This suggests that anything is “constitutional” as long as a majority of Congress says so and the current president agrees. So all Congress now has to do, as long as the Pelosi/Schumer crime families are in charge, is to add a rider to say, a farm bill, that gives OSHA the power to administer forced injections of mysterious, unknown chemicals into every resident of the U.S. One wonders what James Madison would think of this.
 

Doc Sandoz

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
723
This suggests that anything is “constitutional” as long as a majority of Congress says so and the current president agrees.
Not so.

SCOTUS almost never deals with foundational Constitutional questions when it isn't absolutely required to reach the desired decision. In what is colloquially called "fireside equity", the justices usually already know what outcome they want and use the simplest solution available to justify it, avoiding sweeping Constititional pronouncements if at all possible because they always have hard to foresee collateral effects.

Finding limited administrative authority is one of the easiest and least problematic ways to strike down a rule. If, rather, Congress had authorized forced vaxx by statute, which it has not in this case, then the decision would probably rest on a question of federalism - is such a power reserved to the States? If the challenge was made to federal or more likely a state law's violating the Bill of RIghts, as in 1905's Jacobson case, they would simply ignore it unless they could find no other way to strike the law down. Tthen and only then, would they be forced to rule on whether there is a fundamental Constitutional protection and to what limit such right extends.

Given that NY, CA and other hysteria-benighted states are passing laws that are effectively mandates, I expect an unavoidable Constitutional challenge will be working its way up through the courts soon.
 
Last edited:

Sofia2020

Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
400
we got exactly the same rules from our government (without the funny part with court). IThis looks suspicious.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
Thankfully, as far as we know, no one in the United States has had a gun held to his/her head or been tied down and then forcibly injected with the demonvax against his/her will—thus far. Granted. If to force had a univocal meaning and designated only physical force, I would agree with you. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the verb force as 1. make a way through or into by physical strength; break open by force; 2. make (someone) do something against their [sic] will. Taken in the second sense, I would argue that we are definitely seeing forced vaccination in the U.S. Let's say you are a native of Manhattan—I actually met such a person once. This is what you are dealing with: COVID-19: Vaccine Key to NYC - NYC Health. Either accept at least one jab of the demon vax or have your right to a normal existence revoked: no restaurants, no coffee shops, no opera, no concerts, no theatre, no gym, no yoga studio, no nightclub. (Granted life might be better minus some of these things.) Essentially, you can either live as an exile in your native place (get take out, never meet anyone indoors, etc.), or migrate, or cater and succumb to the "medicine." Maybe if you work very hard at it and are lucky you might be able to obtain some kind of exemption. Claiming that such a scenario does not involve force/coercion strikes me as ludicrous.
But it's clearly not "force." There is no "right" to go to restaurants, coffee shops, opera, concerts, theatres, gyms, yoga studios, or nightclubs. In fact, all of these commercial enterprises were closed in New York during March/April 2020, and some longer. Nor is there a "right" to a "normal existence." And what would a "normal existence" be defined as, anyways? Things like gyms and yoga studios were rarely frequented by the majority of people prior to the 1980s, and nightclubs also seem like a more recent venue.

Even if they then consent to taking the vaccine to gain access to these commercial venues, there is no way anyone was "forced" to do so. It's clear people have several other options, from moving, to only frequenting such places in other cities/states (not so hard to do from New York City), boycott such venues, attempt to go to such venues in open defiance of such ordinance, or fake up a vaccine card (which many people are doing). I knew so many people in college that got fake IDs to go to bars and buy alcohol, but now, everyone thinks that filling out a vaccine card is a Herculean task that somehow only a demi-god could possibly accomplish.

I agree that they are trying to get people to yield offering them cheap trinkets and hollow experiences, but such petty bribes certainly don't raise to the level of force or coercion, as far as the dictionary definition of those words.
 

Old Irenaeus

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
442
But it's clearly not "force." There is no "right" to go to restaurants, coffee shops, opera, concerts, theatres, gyms, yoga studios, or nightclubs. In fact, all of these commercial enterprises were closed in New York during March/April 2020, and some longer. Nor is there a "right" to a "normal existence." And what would a "normal existence" be defined as, anyways? Things like gyms and yoga studios were rarely frequented by the majority of people prior to the 1980s, and nightclubs also seem like a more recent venue.

Even if they then consent to taking the vaccine to gain access to these commercial venues, there is no way anyone was "forced" to do so. It's clear people have several other options, from moving, to only frequenting such places in other cities/states (not so hard to do from New York City), boycott such venues, attempt to go to such venues in open defiance of such ordinance, or fake up a vaccine card (which many people are doing). I knew so many people in college that got fake IDs to go to bars and buy alcohol, but now, everyone thinks that filling out a vaccine card is a Herculean task that somehow only a demi-god could possibly accomplish.

I agree that they are trying to get people to yield offering them cheap trinkets and hollow experiences, but such petty bribes certainly don't raise to the level of force or coercion, as far as the dictionary definition of those words.
One could get into a debate on whether any rights exist at all, but if you're speaking about the framework of the American Experiment, the whole thing was allegedly founded upon the "self-evident" notion "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All the stuff that you poo poo as recent fades would be part of that. There could be different pursuits; they are only examples. Being barred from entering a coffee shop because you haven't received a medical treatment seems to violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, it's not true that they're merely bribing people with trinkets to entice folks to take the vaccine. They're using financial, social, cultural, psychological pressure to force people to do something that many are reluctant to do. True: they're not yet using prison, torture, or shooting dissenters in the head. But they're certainly forcing people to make a choice between commensurable values: bodily integrity or a social life, you can't have both.
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
3,092
But it's clearly not "force." There is no "right" to go to restaurants, coffee shops, opera, concerts, theatres, gyms, yoga studios, or nightclubs.

There actually is. It's called civil rights. Using your line of reasoning, blacks didn't have the right to be served at restaurants back when segregation was practiced.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
One could get into a debate on whether any rights exist at all, but if you're speaking about the framework of the American Experiment, the whole thing was allegedly founded upon the "self-evident" notion "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." All the stuff that you poo poo as recent fades would be part of that.
What?!???!??

There is no "right" to go to restaurants. This was not "given" to us by our Creator, nor secured by the Constitution.

It's especially true that there is no "right" to go to bars and nightclubs. You have to present ID to "prove" you are 21 to enter most such establishments, so wouldn't this be violating the same "rights" of those 0-20?

It's clear that things like restaurants, coffee shops, gyms, bars and such are commercial enterprises. And the Constitution clearly grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
There could be different pursuits; they are only examples. Being barred from entering a coffee shop because you haven't received a medical treatment seems to violate the First Amendment.
Um, how? I suggest you re-read the First Amendment, and then explain how not being able to enter a coffee shop, for whatever reason, is akin to Congress passing a law baring someone from speaking freely or somehow preventing their exercise of religion.
Furthermore, it's not true that they're merely bribing people with trinkets to entice folks to take the vaccine. They're using financial, social, cultural, psychological pressure to force people to do something that many are reluctant to do.
Again, they aren't "forcing" anybody to do anything. You even quoted the dictionary definition, so you know this. Clearly, they are trying to entice people, but that's different.
True: they're not yet using prison, torture, or shooting dissenters in the head. But they're certainly forcing people to make a choice between commensurable values: bodily integrity or a social life, you can't have both.
Ridiculous. People can and do have social lives without commercial enterprises, like restaurants, gyms, and nightclubs. Ever hear of a house party? Going for a walk with someone on the beach? Meeting friends up for hike in the wilderness or park? Hanging out? Netflix and Chill?

And again, you still seem to think that faking up a vaccine card is something that NO ONE will do, even though I have known several people to fake state issued ID cards to engage in the exact sort of commercial enterprises you claim that the untainted can't go into.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
There actually is. It's called civil rights. Using your line of reasoning, blacks didn't have the right to be served at restaurants back when segregation was practiced.
Except that "civil rights" are granted by the state, not the Creator, and the 14th Amendment had to create an entirely new class of citizenship to address such an issue.

In the private, you can still discriminate. That's why organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Black Panthers can exist. Or have Men's or Women's only colleges. There is no law banning private discrimination. Justice Scalia made this point very clear-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWodlPIWcOw
 

OccamzRazer

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
1,497
@tankasnowgod

Despite the terseness, I really like what you are speaking to here.

The best way to escape commercial law is to leave behind the entire commerce system.

Or maybe that's way oversimplified, apologies if so lol
 

Perry Staltic

Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2020
Messages
3,092
Except that "civil rights" are granted by the state, not the Creator, and the 14th Amendment had to create an entirely new class of citizenship to address such an issue.

In the private, you can still discriminate. That's why organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Black Panthers can exist. Or have Men's or Women's only colleges. There is no law banning private discrimination. Justice Scalia made this point very clear-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWodlPIWcOw


Private orgs can discriminate, but businesses that sell to the general public are not allowed to discriminate.
 

Old Irenaeus

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2020
Messages
442
What?!???!??

There is no "right" to go to restaurants. This was not "given" to us by our Creator, nor secured by the Constitution.
You are making no sense whatsoever. You claim that the United States of America is a "free country." In what sense? What are the people here free to do? Is there freedom of movement? Am I allowed to walk in any public spaces? Do I have the liberty to enter commercial establishments that are open to the public? Would that not be called a right, i.e. the liberty to do something?
Um, how? I suggest you re-read the First Amendment, and then explain how not being able to enter a coffee shop, for whatever reason, is akin to Congress passing a law baring someone from speaking freely or somehow preventing their exercise of religion.
I suggest that you re-read it yourself and figure out that it does not only pertain to free speech or the exercise of religion.
Again, they aren't "forcing" anybody to do anything. You even quoted the dictionary definition, so you know this. Clearly, they are trying to entice people, but that's different
Wrong. As the definition I quoted says, force means "[to] make (someone) do something against their [sic] will." These are not mere enticements. Offering donuts and beer is an enticement. Depriving someone of a privilege that he/he presently enjoys is not an "incentive." It's deprivation, which entails the use of force. None of these unvaxxed persons is voluntarily giving up dining in or going to the gym. Rather, this is being taken away from them by force. By the way, perhaps you don't know this, but the government is the entity within society which has a monopoly on the lethal use of force. Every regulation issued by a government is backed by the implied use of force.
.

Ridiculous. People can and do have social lives without commercial enterprises, like restaurants, gyms, and nightclubs. Ever hear of a house party? Going for a walk with someone on the beach? Meeting friends up for hike in the wilderness or park? Hanging out? Netflix and Chill?
Ever heard of all the stuff we've been talking about on the forum for months? Like the places where even the parks are closed because of COVID and taped off by police tape? Or the fascist regimes of Australia and California where your house parties get busted by the police and you get fined? You seriously think that curtailing many or most of the life activities that a person engages in is not using force?

And again, you still seem to think that faking up a vaccine card is something that NO ONE will do, even though I have known several people to fake state issued ID cards to engage in the exact sort of commercial enterprises you claim that the untainted can't go into.
Great. So now you are encouraging the us of fake vaccination cards. That's a beautiful vision of freedom that you have there.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
You are making no sense whatsoever. You claim that the United States of America is a "free country." In what sense? What are the people here free to do? Is there freedom of movement? Am I allowed to walk in any public spaces? Do I have the liberty to enter commercial establishments that are open to the public? Would that not be called a right, i.e. the liberty to do something?
These sorts of "rights" are pretty well defined under the common law. Obviously, your "rights" do not permit you to enter into every and any business establishment. You can't just waltz into a business office without permission. You can't just go into a theater or gym without paying or having some sort of membership. And there are restrictions set in place by government on who can enter places like bars and nightclubs.

Just because you don't like these codes and ordinances (I don't either) doesn't mean that they are unconstitutional. Nor that they violate your "rights." Was a nightclub violating my "rights" by not allowing me to enter when I was 19?
I suggest that you re-read it yourself and figure out that it does not only pertain to free speech or the exercise of religion.
Oh, I have. Here is the full text of said Amendment-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, you show me in any way how this guarantees you entrance into a Starbucks. I'm waiting.
Wrong. As the definition I quoted says, force means "[to] make (someone) do something against their [sic] will." These are not mere enticements. Offering donuts and beer is an enticement. Depriving someone of a privilege that he/he presently enjoys is not an "incentive." It's deprivation, which entails the use of force. None of these unvaxxed persons is voluntarily giving up dining in or going to the gym. Rather, this is being taken away from them by force. By the way, perhaps you don't know this, but the government is the entity within society which has a monopoly on the lethal use of force. Every regulation issued by a government is backed by the implied use of force.
Ridiculous argument. It clearly isn't "forcing" anyone to take a vaccine.
Ever heard of all the stuff we've been talking about on the forum for months?
Yes, I've been an active part of it since March 2020. You can check my record.
Like the places where even the parks are closed because of COVID and taped off by police tape?
What does this have to do with vaccines? I haven't seen anything of this nature since around June of 2020, and there was no "vaccine passport" to enter at those times.
Or the fascist regimes of Australia and California where your house parties get busted by the police and you get fined?
You may not know this, but Australia isn't part of the United States in any way, shape or form. So, anything that happens there isn't relevant. As for "house parties" getting busted by police in California, well, I have been at parties that got busted up and fined decades before anyone even heard of Covid. I have seen plenty of such gatherings within the past year and half that hasn't been in any way harrassed by police or agents of the state. I don't know what specific issue or story you are referring to in California.
You seriously think that curtailing many or most of the life activities that a person engages in is not using force?
Which is it? Many or most of life activities? Or simply access to restaurants, bars, nightclubs, concerts, theaters, and such? Because, no, I don't think the later constitutes the use of force AT ALL. In fact, I currently live in an area where there are some of these restrictions on such activities, and I have felt ZERO pressure to take the demonvax at any point in the past year.

That's not to say I won't feel more of a challenge at some point, but the idea of feeling "forced" to take a vaccine because I can't order a beer at a certain bar is beyond ludicrous.
Great. So now you are encouraging the us of fake vaccination cards. That's a beautiful vision of freedom that you have there.
I am not "encouraging" anything. But it's absolutely an option, and a lot of people are engaging in it. To turn a blind eye to that happening (especially when people have been using fake IDs to get into bars for decades) is silly.

Nor is it a part of my "Vision of Freedom." In truth, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. I think the Amish have a better understanding of Freedom than the vast majority of Americans. Clearly, Freedom is about a lot more than simply getting drunk in a nightclub.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
7,090
The Civil Rights Act guarantees that.
The Civil Rights Act isn't part of the First Amendment.

I do think it might be worth challenging the "Vaccine Passports" in places like NY on 14th Amendment grounds. Maybe even the Civil Rights Act, though there is nothing in that act about health status and such.
 

Similar threads

Top