K
Kayaker
Guest
The old man said there were 750 million new cases the previous day. ?
Front Page Featured | MRCTV
cnsnews.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
The old man said there were 750 million new cases the previous day. ?
Yep, the same Freedom of Speech influence that every living man and woman has, and some select clones/CGI holograms/Rubber Mask Wearing actors.Biden still has influence even without the OSHA mandate.
Exactly.Nothing about forcing an injection on someone to hold their job makes sense. Neither do you make any sense. It seems like you’re an apologist for evil, intentional or not.
I think you largely hit on it, the president could be used to by restaurants in cities like NY to challenge any sort of "Vaccine Passport," but if a business got a PPP loan, for example, they may not have the standing to challenge it.Do you think this decision also casts a serious doubt over the legality of the local vaccine mandates? I mean, if the ruling establishes that OSHA was never endowed with power (by Congress) to push vaccine mandates on private employers and their workers, it seems to me that it is even less legal for local governments to force private entities to demand sensitive (and non-public) health information from their clients (so, even less legal "power" over them than in an employer->employee situation) as a basis of deciding on allowing/banning entry on the premises. If we use the same criteria from the ruling and apply it to the local level, private entities such as bars, gyms, restaurants, etc do not typically receive state funds, so the governor/mayor should have no power to force vaccine mandates on them. Actually, come to think of it, they may justify the mandates for all local businesses/organizations using the argument that those entities have received financial help during the pandemic, but I think the majority of companies in the services/entertainment sector did NOT get state help, so this should still leave a decent amount of "untainted" business that could be exempt from the mandates. Moreover, since the local mandates are currently blanket, it prevents a non-vaxxed person from seeking/using alternatives, which is the epitome of total "discrimination based on health status", expressly forbidden by federal law. I can't wait to see the mental acrobatics the "left" will do perform to explain why localized fascism is perfectly OK despite this ruling.
Anyways, good ruling and I suspect this is just the beginning, especially in regards to challenges filed against the local mandates.
I think that is a great loophole If the local mandates somehow remain, watch how those establishments start giving say 0.000000001% equity to each of their staff and then lay them off, but then those people come back and work as owners-operators for tips only. The majority owner(s) then have a shareholder meeting and pass a company bylaw saying each one of those minority owners get an hourly bonus (for every hours worked only) exactly equal to their hourly earnings when they were employees. As long as there are no W2 or 1099 employees, this could work (assuming they did not take PPP or other state relief "loans" in the past).The reason was that it was owner operated, having no employees, and the ordinance was specifically to protect employees, not customers.
Ridiculous. I think it is more that you don't understand the decision, or the Ashwander Rules. The Supreme Court has long heldNothing about forcing an injection on someone to hold their job makes sense. Neither do you make any sense. It seems like you’re an apologist for evil, intentional or not.
State vaccination laws include vaccination requirements for children in public and private schools and daycare settings, college/university students, and healthcare workers and patients in certain facilities.
We need to keep our spirits up and ignore the depressing aspects that are causing more sickness than this (possible) seasonal flu/cold/virus plandemic. We need to see what develops and what the conservatives decide to do with this ruling.Do I understand correctly that healthcare workers in about half the states (the ones that had rejected the mandate) are now under the mandate? Seems like more of a defeat than a victory.
yes it is very hopefulGreat news. It’s a good start.
I think what you don’t understand is that the founders did not care about the King’s rules the same way we don’t care about the rules of the people you’re apologizing for. Nothing but nonsense comes out of your diseased brain.Ridiculous. I think it is more that you don't understand the decision, or the Ashwander Rules. The Supreme Court has long held
"The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."
This is what the two ruling were based on, and just because you don't understand that does not mean that I am "an apologist for evil."
The court blocked the private mandate, but allowed "Biden's vaccine mandate for healthcare employees at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to stay."
So, it's not even necessarily for ALL healthcare workers, but for healthcare workers who work at facilities receiving Federal Funds.
If you familiarize yourself with the Ashwander Rules, it becomes very clear why they decided what they decided in this particular case, even if you don't like it.
And to cap it off, I would suggest your statement itself doesn't make much sense. Many jobs required vaccinations prior to December 2019, especially jobs within healthcare.
CDC - Vaccination Laws - Publications by Topic - Public Health Law
CDC works with public health agencies to improve and sustain immunization coverage and to monitor the safety of vaccines. One tool used is vaccination law.www.cdc.gov
This seems like an interesting strategyAnyways, good ruling and I suspect this is just the beginning, especially in regards to challenges filed against the local mandates.
In-N-Out in San Fran switched to drive-thru.I think you largely hit on it, the president could be used to by restaurants in cities like NY to challenge any sort of "Vaccine Passport," but if a business got a PPP loan, for example, they may not have the standing to challenge it.
Of course, there are other ways, too. In N Out in San Francisco refused to check for customer's vaccine cards, as they saw that as being an arm of the state. Haven't heard much about that, since. And it could also depend on who such laws were meant to "protect." There is a bar in Los Angeles, the Tiki Ti, that remained a smoking bar openly and legally for decades after the "No Smoking in Restaurants/Bars" ordinance was passed. The reason was that it was owner operated, having no employees, and the ordinance was specifically to protect employees, not customers. Obviously, customers could easily go to another bar or restaurant (or none at all) if they objected to being around smoke.
*liberals* are always the ones who want to force 'whatever' on everyone else?Supreme Court hands Biden COVID vax mandate defeat, sparking fury from liberals
Liberals across the Twitter sphere reacted with anger, Republican attacks, and calls for Democrats to pack the Supreme Court following the nation’s highest court’s decision to block President Biden’s vaccine mandate on businesses with over 100 employees.www.foxnews.com
Yes - hope so!!!Do you think this decision also casts a serious doubt over the legality of the local vaccine mandates? I mean, if the ruling establishes that OSHA was never endowed with power (by Congress) to push vaccine mandates on private employers and their workers, it seems to me that it is even less legal for local governments to force private entities to demand sensitive (and non-public) health information from their clients (so, even less legal "power" over them than in an employer->employee situation) as a basis of deciding on allowing/banning entry on the premises.
And you don't seem to understand that the founders didn't set up a Welfare state. In case you weren't aware, Medicare and Medicaid were set up under the "New Deal," and not under Washington. Bringing up the founders in relation to an institution that accepts those benefits is silly.I think what you don’t understand is that the founders did not care about the King’s rules the same way we don’t care about the rules of the people you’re apologizing for. Nothing but nonsense comes out of your diseased brain.
Listen clown, the time for your games and the rules that you created for them is past. You can continue to ramble about your fantasy world where men create rules that justify forced injections, and continue to be an apologist for those men, because there are other games that people play where men hunt other men.And you don't seem to understand that the founders didn't set up a Welfare state. In case you weren't aware, Medicare and Medicaid were set up under the "New Deal," and not under Washington. Bringing up the founders in relation to an institution that accepts those benefits is silly.
You don't seem to have a basic understanding of civics, or the history of government in this country. And to make excuses for your lack of knowledge, you hurl insults at others. Seeing as that's the case, I think it's best I leave this here.
Fair enough, but Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch didn't see it as being that simple. 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 there are strings attached to the welfare money, and these workers are entering into a contract with their employers etc. 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.The ruling about healthcare workers actually makes sense, whether you like it or not. Notice this part-
It's very simple. Don't want to be subject to Federal Government rules? Don't take Federal Government money. Or "benefits and privileges."
Of course, there could be other challenges to these "Healthcare Worker" mandates. I still haven't seen healthcare workers/facilities challenge the mandate based on the principles from Doe vs. Rumsfeld, for example.
It really pains me when people like Sotomayer are referred to as "liberals." Traditionally liberals believe in maximum freedom for the individual limited only by the equivalent freedom of others as opposed to the conservative belief in subjection to traditional authority such as the king or the church. The Sotomayors of the world are more accurately called by the other name they claim, "progressive." Progressives believe in using the coercive power of the state to ensure all people are made safe and equal according to plans envisioned by a "benevolent" intellectual elite. They are in fact collectivists who believe the good of the many trumps the good of the few and so are willing to sacrifice the liberty and life of the few for what they believe to be the good of the collective. "Your body, Our choice," would thus be their motto in the present case.*liberals* are always the ones who want to force 'whatever' on everyone else