NFL employees get spike proteins in their stockings; another pricey ivy-league college closes classes after an outbreak; UK upgrades its passport requirements; Hochul re-masks New York, and more...
As a former Trumper, I put my sour estimation of his presidency behind no one. But I'm not sure you can lay this at his feet (okay, okay - I'll give you Kavanaugh.)
After all, which conservatives among us were NOT cheering on the Amy Coney-Barrett nomination? None. We all thought she was the next best thing to the Second Coming.
Allow me to suggest the "The Federalist Society" were the ones making his picks for him... And all the NeoCon stooges that he allowed into his group of advisors... Who'da thought that electing a guy who knew how to talk a good demagogue game - but with no real political experience or understanding would go poorly... Oh well... Better luck next time.
First - let me applaud DeSantis for doing right on the Covid1984 issue. Kudos. Well done.
However... I'm a little bit concerned about guys who worked at GUANTANAMO, in the indefinite detention and torture business (of mostly innocent people), without Jury trials. But that's just me... My Voluntarist Leftish-leaning Libertarian Boogaloo friend Mr. Magnus Panvidya did a pretty solid takedown and deconstruction of DeSantis, much of which I concurred with. Now I'm a lefty...and I don't support the virulent Pro-Gusano/Anti-Cuba stuff, and GOP Culture warfare that he engages in, so perhaps I was an easy audience to convince. Here's the link. https://youtu.be/IYB3QWNCwJQ
I'll let the faithful decide if Magnus' was on target with this. I disagree with Magnus, and agree with DeSantis - about setting regulations AGAINST 'private businesses' creating their own mandates and jab-tyrrany. To me - that falls squarely within the PROPER regulation of Commerce - to protect the rights of workers and society, from the private half of the fascist "Public-Private Partnership" model...which id Corporatism at it's roots.
I'm definitely not a fan of politicians monetizing their positions by stealing from the populace, though that's what they do. That said, if they own etf's or funds that hold pharmecuticals, that would be a "nothing sandwich". It bothers me more when they sell their "art" and such. Think of Obama coming into the presidency and the mortgage he owed on his house. Now, some few years later, he owns homes (yes more than one) worth multiple millions. Ask yourself, what product did he bring to market? What did he sell (because he did sell something)?
Yeah... it's shocking to me, how easily the left was co-opted into supporting Dick Cheney's cousin, the 'Intelligence Community' Organizer - just because he had brown skin, and took CIA classes in folksy-delivery and Platitude delivery.
Yes he sells those appearances but that's not where it stops. He now has a "relationship" with the people at whose event he spoke. They then make money available to any projects or concerns he or those in his circle have. It's a much bigger grift than just the appearance money. The Clinton's wrote the book on it. They sold uranium mines to the Russians and more. Here's a great book on some of their grifts: https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
He got a huge payout and Golden Parachute from Wall Street, and then an Executive Producer gig at Netflix - despite having no real experience in making films (aside from covert CIA control of Media production, from the White House, that is).
Yeah, currently I'm confused. Reading Kennedy's book and it's clear that the bio-weapons (think virus) have been hatching in the pits of darkness (think CIA, HSA...) and they've been getting funding through the typical political grift (think fear tactics of headlines saying we're all going to die of something). Now include in that the revolving door policy of CIA and fbi at nyt's and wpo, plus other spooks and you see the tendencies to lies and grift. Now add to that the issue with hemorrhaging cash flows of just SO much money you don't know how to invest it (think Bezos, zuck et al.), so you invest in R&D. The time though was when R&D is also going on in big Pharma including all the patents around the bioweapon and its spike proteins - SO? (as Jeff would say "so..."), what does it all mean and how does it fit together? So, my confusion.
I couldn’t finish Kennedy’s book. Not even the first chapter. He got so political so quickly it made me want to laugh. D’s good, R’s the reason we’re in this mess was his implication from page one. As if Fauci doesn’t have a huge Scarlett ‘D’ around his neck.
The ‘R’s’ aren’t perfect but at least they aren’t the outspokenly the party of anti-God, abortion on demand, and communistic control.
I say that as an ‘I.’ Nope, if Kennedy wanted to be taken seriously he would leave politics out of it. As it is, he comes across as a bitter political hack.
You crack me up! My wife can tell you how I howled about the very issue. He is a died in the wool democrat but I don't believe he's a lefty, though I'm concerned about his Global Warming beliefs. Still there was a point when I just didn't notice that noise anymore. The information is amazing and pulls the curtain back yet further. There are things he lays out that I wish I didn't know but really have to. His father was killed by the cia and much of the issues we're currently having is that same group that's running amok. This is TOO important of a book to let my issues trigger me away from it. Though I still chuckle thinking back when I told my wife that I wasn't sure I would be able to make my way through it. I am VERY impressed with it.
How did they get that group under control from the time after his father was killed until the past few years? Or did they simply go underground and are becoming more bold?
I haven't "followed" the cia at all and it appears to my detriment. Kennedy will walk you through where some of them put their energy. I believe they started funding their lives by running drugs back in the days of the Golden Triangle. Now they monetize in various ways and this assault on our American way of life by use of bio-weapon germs is another example of the gift that keeps on giving.
You're missing out on all of the important information in the book. Everyone has their own politics and biases, and it tends to cone through when people speak and write. If you want the important information that the author has, sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and press on, past those parts. I 'm not a Democrat - I'm from the ACTUAL LEFT. While I often disagree with Jeff's political takes - I press on, past those, because of the important information here.
I'm not FOR abortion, personally...but I understand that people need access to them in a safe medical setting - because the alternative is coathangers and death by sepsis ... So if that's "on-demand", I guess I'm for it, as a matter if public policy. I'm not a big fan of Dominonist Xristianist theology and theocracy, either (I'm a "Quaker") - does that make me anti-God? And as for "communistic control" - regulation of commerce is the Constitutional power handed to Congress... It may be authoritarian, and it can even become Totalitarian (particularly as the commerce clause has been abused and expanded to include all aspects of life, through 14th Amendment "US citizenship")... But let's be real here - the Democrats are the NeoLiberal Center-Right. They're pretty solidly within the capitalist camp. If they weren't - we'd have single-payer healthcare, free college education, and there'd be nobody living under bridges or 'on the streets'.
So allow to recommend that you push through the whole book - and maybe keep a list of notes for the author, with your critiques. I'm fairly certain that RFK Jr. is looking to reach all people with the important information about Fauci - so perhaps you can help improve the receptivity of broader audiences to future editions and his public speaking.
All vaccines have some risk, both actual vaccines and the mRNA jabs. Even the safest ones have risk. The government (federal, state, local) doesn't get to make some abstract calculation in the aggregate that forcing actual risk on enough individual persons will somehow potentially benefit the people overall. That just violates the most basic principles of human free will and autonomy. Vax mandates, in principle, should be out of bounds.
I had what I would consider severe reactions to the modern shots. I am still dealing with the after effects. and I am in great health, not old, not overweight, no chronic conditions (until now). For anyone with autoimmune or other chronic conditions, or a previous/family history of clotting or cardiac problems, I would imagine these shots are very risky indeed. I cannot understand how the ADA or simply personal health profiles are not valid reasons not to partake in these things. It's not just wrong. It's dangerous. People are getting hurt. I am one.
The "more jabs" when the first ones don't work doesn't follow the usual medical/scientific protocols. If an antibiotic is found to be ineffective against a specific organism, we do not simply give more of the same. We do something DIFFERENT. The UK is lost ...
That IS one of the biggest issues. If we lose body autonomy, we lose everything. What’s then to stop the government from forced sterilizations and forced abortions (as seen in China)?
I felt from the time the SCOTUS passed on hearing anything about election fraud or staying the election theft going on that they would not touch anything to do with the pandemic or mandates coming out of it. When Coney-Barrett was put on the court, Conservatives thought they had just won the lottery. In fact, I voted for Trump based on SC nominations he would make. It seemed that important. What a disappointment ACB and Kavanaugh have been so far. The SCOTUS doesn’t want to touch this. Gorsuch is so right about our Constitutional rights. It appears now that the SC has been bought off or threatened into being non existent.
Hoping Jeff sees this and weighs in. Jeff—Do you think this means they will pass on all of the cases, and will simply allow the lower court decisions to stand?
Jacobson (1905) clearly says that vaccine mandates are a state police powers issue. So it's not clear what role the Supreme Court would have unless they wanted to change that. I — for one — don't want them to, for a whole lot of reasons
Why wouldn't noting that they're *not* vaccines - by reference to the definitional change from September and noting that Jacobson didn't contemplate such a sea change in the meaning of "vaccine" - be a valid reason to ignore Jacobson in these particular cases? What was considered a "vaccine" in 1905 is not what's considered a "vaccine" since September 2021.
I mean, when language changes and changes and changes, to the point of invoking Humpty Dumpty, what sense does it make to apply *today's* definitions to yesteryear's decisions?
For that practice would allow applying today's definition of "militia" to the Second Amendment. Don't think we want to start THAT kind of precedent.
I think the issue of the Injection not being a Vaccine should be addressed by the courts. Mandates should be thrown out because of the false definition. There is no Vaccine.
Yeah, does Jacobson contemplate mandating "vaccines" that have been untested for long-term safety, does it contemplate mandating "vaccines" about which there is a growing body of data regarding known safety dangers and failing efficacy?
I don't know the answers, but I'd bet the mortgage that the answers are no and no.
Let's take it to a (seemingly, though not really given today's environment) absurd example.
If the definition of "vaccine" were expanded to include a daily regimen of exercise, fruits & vegetables, and sunshine, on the grounds that their combined effect is similar to that of a vaccine, would Jacobson grant states the power to mandate daily exercise, fruits & vegetables, and sunshine?
If the definition of "vaccine" were expanded to include abortifacients on the grounds that they prevent a condition - pregnancy - from risking the life of the mother, would Jacobson grant states the power to mandate the use of abortifacient "vaccines" when State employees become pregnant, as a condition of keeping their jobs?
At what point does Jacobson become inapt because of the changes in the meanings of the words that provide the very foundation of Jacobson?
If the definition of "vaccine" were expanded to include The Pill on the grounds that it prevents the condition of pregnancy, would Jacobson grant states the power to mandate the use of The Pill for all State employees, as a condition of keeping their jobs?
WE were the ones ecstatic over ACB. WE were the ones who said that she should've been nominated when Kavanaugh got the nod, and WE insisted that she be next. That's on us, not Trump.
And Anthony Kennedy wouldn't've retired if he didn't get a say in his replacement. That's why Kavanaugh is there. That's on Kennedy (who, still, would be worse than Kavanaugh), not Trump.
Gorsuch is on Trump. And Gorsuch is largely a stellar Justice.
As for OWS, that was a noble effort, given what was and wasn't known at the time. What it turned into is thanks to Biden et al.
And though Trump still claims the vax is "safe & effective", at no point did he ever imply let alone declare that he wanted it to be mandatory. Still never has. He warp-sped it so that it would be *available* to anyone who wants it. It's the Left and Democrat Party (and a few GOP squishes) who turned it into a weapon of tyranny and despotism.
Sorry to be barking up the Jacobson tree again, but...it seems to me that:
When language is narrow and specific we cannot and must *not* use today’s language to understand yesterday’s use of that language. Similarly, when language is broad and general, we can and *must* use today’s language to understand yesterday’s use of that language.
The Second Amendment did not protect “the right to keep and bear muskets”. That would’ve been narrow and specific, and today we’d be obligated to interpret 2A within the context of what a “musket” is. Obviously, AR15s and 9mms are not muskets, and would not be protected.
2A was broad and general – "the right to keep and bear *arms*" – and so we can and must use today's language to understand the meaning of 2A in the context of the word “arms”.
2A was also narrow and specific – “a well-regulated militia” – and so we cannot and must not use today’s language to understand the meaning of “a well-regulated militia”. We must use yesterday’s language.
If Jacobson had validated state-mandated “drugs” or “medicines” (broad and general), we’d use today’s definitions, and Jacobson would be a valid precedent for state-imposed vaxx mandates.
BUT Jacobson only validated state-mandated *vaccines* (narrow and specific), so the definition of “vaccine” as it was understood THEN should be what matters.
That is why Jacobson is invalid and inapt as precedent, IMHO.
The First Amendment references the broad, general "religion", not a specific Church or a specific denomination. It applies broadly to all religions, even ones founded *after* the Constitution was ratified.
It references the broad, general "freedom of speech", not specific forms of speech, and freedom "of the press", not specifically newspapers or broadsheets or pamphlets. It applies to all forms of speech and the press, even technologies of speech and press that were invented *after* the Constitution was ratified.
I'm no brainiac, so I cannot for the life of me understand why our brilliant black-robed Justices can't figure this sht out.
If the Supreme court keeps flushing the injection cases, then will employers feel they have license to deny employees’ religious accommodations? I work for a fed contractor and am preparing my RA but these decisions are very disheartening.
Good question. And sometimes the accommodation that is granted isn't a real solution. I have an exemption from my small firm in NYC but the accommodation is to work to from which is not doable for me long term. I need to be in the office (unmasked). Really the only solution here is that it need to be understood that any vaccine or injection mandates are, in principal, illegitimate for government (at any level) to legislate or employers to enforce. I also include any vax mandates that schools require as well.
ALWAYS follow the money. Mankind is so pathetically predictable. Love of money is the root of all evil, huh? I cannot fathom the mindset of willingly taking financial gain at the expense of the literal life, liberty, and happiness of others.
Politicians making money off of vaccines they force on the taxpayers. So the taxpayers unwillingly fund the private pharmaceutical companies through our taxes, and then the politicians force taxpayers to use the funded product we didn’t even want, so our tax dollars can essentially fund their beach houses that they tell us not to buy due to the global “climate change crisis”. Ok this isn’t tyranny at all.
US Mega-Corporations Rush to Abandon Illegal Vax Mandates
Oopsie. The Biden Administration’s lawlessness over vaccine mandates has been exposed and along with it, the mega-corporate malfeasance that went along with it. With vanishing government support, these same companies are rushing to reverse their own mandates to avoid a lawsuit hell of their own. While government can hide behind legal immunity, corporations cannot. ⁃ TN Editor
What a great summary of today’s events. I live in the Uk and am sad I will most likely have to leave auschwitz, I mean England soon. Don’t the Brits and other Europeans remember ww2? Short memories. Probably because those who lived through the hardships are dead or near the age of death. Does the name Hitler ring any bells to the next generation? Guess not.
If you quit, that's on you. If you make them fire you, you may, once this stuff is all settled in the courts, have a wrongful termination case and get some compensation.
I was thinking that. I think they put them on leave first from what I’ve seen and go through a process. I’m in a tough spot as I need the health insurance which is for my whole family.
I believe the ObamaCare health care exchanges are open until early-mid January…might want to check out a cheap ,catastrophic policy for next year. Just in case. I believe you can get COBRA (if you are terminated) for 6 months but it’s expensive
I'm not a lawyer, but being denied a religious exemption smells like illegal discrimination to me.
What I am is an employer, and although too small to to be subject to any mandates, if I were subject to mandates, I would rubber stamp exemptions instantly.
If they deny your religious accommodation you might have a case. If they “approve” they can still fire you because you are placing an “undue hardship” on the company for simply breathing and existing.
Religious accommodations are a “de minimus” test to the company, that is, theoretically a $1 cost could be undue burden. With Covid they are arguing that you being in the office is a direct threat to your coworkers. It’s pathetic but what a lot are doing
I'm thinking there is still a case for claiming 'constructive dismissal' if you resign. I consider the accommodations they gave me for my RE to constitute a hostile work environment, one I'm no longer willing to endure.
But I'm also thinking: where are all the lawyers? And not holding my breath.
Ok, I'm finally ready to enlist in the C&C army! I kept thinking of it as a Florida thing, but I recognize the benefit to our country - I know I've seen it but can't find it but - where do I sign up, please?
I had to stop reading the newsletter to come post here when I came across this quote from Justice Gorsuch:
“is always the failure to defend the Constitution’s promises that leads to this court’s greatest regrets.”
That is one powerful statement - "the failure to defend the Constitution’s promises".
As a former Trumper, I put my sour estimation of his presidency behind no one. But I'm not sure you can lay this at his feet (okay, okay - I'll give you Kavanaugh.)
After all, which conservatives among us were NOT cheering on the Amy Coney-Barrett nomination? None. We all thought she was the next best thing to the Second Coming.
True! What a disappointment. I think she is scared to rule with integrity.
Allow me to suggest the "The Federalist Society" were the ones making his picks for him... And all the NeoCon stooges that he allowed into his group of advisors... Who'da thought that electing a guy who knew how to talk a good demagogue game - but with no real political experience or understanding would go poorly... Oh well... Better luck next time.
First - let me applaud DeSantis for doing right on the Covid1984 issue. Kudos. Well done.
However... I'm a little bit concerned about guys who worked at GUANTANAMO, in the indefinite detention and torture business (of mostly innocent people), without Jury trials. But that's just me... My Voluntarist Leftish-leaning Libertarian Boogaloo friend Mr. Magnus Panvidya did a pretty solid takedown and deconstruction of DeSantis, much of which I concurred with. Now I'm a lefty...and I don't support the virulent Pro-Gusano/Anti-Cuba stuff, and GOP Culture warfare that he engages in, so perhaps I was an easy audience to convince. Here's the link. https://youtu.be/IYB3QWNCwJQ
I'll let the faithful decide if Magnus' was on target with this. I disagree with Magnus, and agree with DeSantis - about setting regulations AGAINST 'private businesses' creating their own mandates and jab-tyrrany. To me - that falls squarely within the PROPER regulation of Commerce - to protect the rights of workers and society, from the private half of the fascist "Public-Private Partnership" model...which id Corporatism at it's roots.
Looking forward to finding out who made the most money off of the "pandemic"....
I'm definitely not a fan of politicians monetizing their positions by stealing from the populace, though that's what they do. That said, if they own etf's or funds that hold pharmecuticals, that would be a "nothing sandwich". It bothers me more when they sell their "art" and such. Think of Obama coming into the presidency and the mortgage he owed on his house. Now, some few years later, he owns homes (yes more than one) worth multiple millions. Ask yourself, what product did he bring to market? What did he sell (because he did sell something)?
Yeah... it's shocking to me, how easily the left was co-opted into supporting Dick Cheney's cousin, the 'Intelligence Community' Organizer - just because he had brown skin, and took CIA classes in folksy-delivery and Platitude delivery.
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/10/01/a-company-family-the-untold-history-of-obama-and-the-cia/
Remember also that any use of weapons in other theatres opens multiple opportunities for financial deals.
he sold appearances at events - at least that's one way they make big money.
Yes he sells those appearances but that's not where it stops. He now has a "relationship" with the people at whose event he spoke. They then make money available to any projects or concerns he or those in his circle have. It's a much bigger grift than just the appearance money. The Clinton's wrote the book on it. They sold uranium mines to the Russians and more. Here's a great book on some of their grifts: https://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Cash-Foreign-Governments-Businesses/dp/0062369296
He got a huge payout and Golden Parachute from Wall Street, and then an Executive Producer gig at Netflix - despite having no real experience in making films (aside from covert CIA control of Media production, from the White House, that is).
His soul?
Gates, Bezos, Zoros, Zuck, with politicians following close behind
Yeah, currently I'm confused. Reading Kennedy's book and it's clear that the bio-weapons (think virus) have been hatching in the pits of darkness (think CIA, HSA...) and they've been getting funding through the typical political grift (think fear tactics of headlines saying we're all going to die of something). Now include in that the revolving door policy of CIA and fbi at nyt's and wpo, plus other spooks and you see the tendencies to lies and grift. Now add to that the issue with hemorrhaging cash flows of just SO much money you don't know how to invest it (think Bezos, zuck et al.), so you invest in R&D. The time though was when R&D is also going on in big Pharma including all the patents around the bioweapon and its spike proteins - SO? (as Jeff would say "so..."), what does it all mean and how does it fit together? So, my confusion.
I couldn’t finish Kennedy’s book. Not even the first chapter. He got so political so quickly it made me want to laugh. D’s good, R’s the reason we’re in this mess was his implication from page one. As if Fauci doesn’t have a huge Scarlett ‘D’ around his neck.
The ‘R’s’ aren’t perfect but at least they aren’t the outspokenly the party of anti-God, abortion on demand, and communistic control.
I say that as an ‘I.’ Nope, if Kennedy wanted to be taken seriously he would leave politics out of it. As it is, he comes across as a bitter political hack.
You crack me up! My wife can tell you how I howled about the very issue. He is a died in the wool democrat but I don't believe he's a lefty, though I'm concerned about his Global Warming beliefs. Still there was a point when I just didn't notice that noise anymore. The information is amazing and pulls the curtain back yet further. There are things he lays out that I wish I didn't know but really have to. His father was killed by the cia and much of the issues we're currently having is that same group that's running amok. This is TOO important of a book to let my issues trigger me away from it. Though I still chuckle thinking back when I told my wife that I wasn't sure I would be able to make my way through it. I am VERY impressed with it.
How did they get that group under control from the time after his father was killed until the past few years? Or did they simply go underground and are becoming more bold?
I haven't "followed" the cia at all and it appears to my detriment. Kennedy will walk you through where some of them put their energy. I believe they started funding their lives by running drugs back in the days of the Golden Triangle. Now they monetize in various ways and this assault on our American way of life by use of bio-weapon germs is another example of the gift that keeps on giving.
You're missing out on all of the important information in the book. Everyone has their own politics and biases, and it tends to cone through when people speak and write. If you want the important information that the author has, sometimes you just have to grit your teeth and press on, past those parts. I 'm not a Democrat - I'm from the ACTUAL LEFT. While I often disagree with Jeff's political takes - I press on, past those, because of the important information here.
I'm not FOR abortion, personally...but I understand that people need access to them in a safe medical setting - because the alternative is coathangers and death by sepsis ... So if that's "on-demand", I guess I'm for it, as a matter if public policy. I'm not a big fan of Dominonist Xristianist theology and theocracy, either (I'm a "Quaker") - does that make me anti-God? And as for "communistic control" - regulation of commerce is the Constitutional power handed to Congress... It may be authoritarian, and it can even become Totalitarian (particularly as the commerce clause has been abused and expanded to include all aspects of life, through 14th Amendment "US citizenship")... But let's be real here - the Democrats are the NeoLiberal Center-Right. They're pretty solidly within the capitalist camp. If they weren't - we'd have single-payer healthcare, free college education, and there'd be nobody living under bridges or 'on the streets'.
So allow to recommend that you push through the whole book - and maybe keep a list of notes for the author, with your critiques. I'm fairly certain that RFK Jr. is looking to reach all people with the important information about Fauci - so perhaps you can help improve the receptivity of broader audiences to future editions and his public speaking.
All vaccines have some risk, both actual vaccines and the mRNA jabs. Even the safest ones have risk. The government (federal, state, local) doesn't get to make some abstract calculation in the aggregate that forcing actual risk on enough individual persons will somehow potentially benefit the people overall. That just violates the most basic principles of human free will and autonomy. Vax mandates, in principle, should be out of bounds.
I had what I would consider severe reactions to the modern shots. I am still dealing with the after effects. and I am in great health, not old, not overweight, no chronic conditions (until now). For anyone with autoimmune or other chronic conditions, or a previous/family history of clotting or cardiac problems, I would imagine these shots are very risky indeed. I cannot understand how the ADA or simply personal health profiles are not valid reasons not to partake in these things. It's not just wrong. It's dangerous. People are getting hurt. I am one.
That's why it makes No sense for anyone to dictate or encourage anyone else to get this Injection [or any shot, vaccine, medication].
Why would any of us presume to make that judgment for others?
shoot - modern was supposed to be "moderna"
Tho it is, kind of, a modern one.... :)
I feel like I’m on the verge of a schizophrenic meltdown. It just makes no sense to me.
The "more jabs" when the first ones don't work doesn't follow the usual medical/scientific protocols. If an antibiotic is found to be ineffective against a specific organism, we do not simply give more of the same. We do something DIFFERENT. The UK is lost ...
Any legitimate idea why SCOTUS won't take up an injection case?
I've come around to thinking it has something to do with Roe v Wade (bodily autonomy issue).
That IS one of the biggest issues. If we lose body autonomy, we lose everything. What’s then to stop the government from forced sterilizations and forced abortions (as seen in China)?
Forced implants, AI devices and sensors that track you.
Except there's no *second* person involved in a vaxx decision.
Au contraire! There are thousands of grandmas you're killing by not getting injected! /s
I felt from the time the SCOTUS passed on hearing anything about election fraud or staying the election theft going on that they would not touch anything to do with the pandemic or mandates coming out of it. When Coney-Barrett was put on the court, Conservatives thought they had just won the lottery. In fact, I voted for Trump based on SC nominations he would make. It seemed that important. What a disappointment ACB and Kavanaugh have been so far. The SCOTUS doesn’t want to touch this. Gorsuch is so right about our Constitutional rights. It appears now that the SC has been bought off or threatened into being non existent.
Agree. It’s so sad. The biggest disappointments of this all
Hoping Jeff sees this and weighs in. Jeff—Do you think this means they will pass on all of the cases, and will simply allow the lower court decisions to stand?
Jacobson (1905) clearly says that vaccine mandates are a state police powers issue. So it's not clear what role the Supreme Court would have unless they wanted to change that. I — for one — don't want them to, for a whole lot of reasons
Why wouldn't noting that they're *not* vaccines - by reference to the definitional change from September and noting that Jacobson didn't contemplate such a sea change in the meaning of "vaccine" - be a valid reason to ignore Jacobson in these particular cases? What was considered a "vaccine" in 1905 is not what's considered a "vaccine" since September 2021.
I mean, when language changes and changes and changes, to the point of invoking Humpty Dumpty, what sense does it make to apply *today's* definitions to yesteryear's decisions?
For that practice would allow applying today's definition of "militia" to the Second Amendment. Don't think we want to start THAT kind of precedent.
I think the issue of the Injection not being a Vaccine should be addressed by the courts. Mandates should be thrown out because of the false definition. There is no Vaccine.
Yeah, does Jacobson contemplate mandating "vaccines" that have been untested for long-term safety, does it contemplate mandating "vaccines" about which there is a growing body of data regarding known safety dangers and failing efficacy?
I don't know the answers, but I'd bet the mortgage that the answers are no and no.
Let's take it to a (seemingly, though not really given today's environment) absurd example.
If the definition of "vaccine" were expanded to include a daily regimen of exercise, fruits & vegetables, and sunshine, on the grounds that their combined effect is similar to that of a vaccine, would Jacobson grant states the power to mandate daily exercise, fruits & vegetables, and sunshine?
If the definition of "vaccine" were expanded to include abortifacients on the grounds that they prevent a condition - pregnancy - from risking the life of the mother, would Jacobson grant states the power to mandate the use of abortifacient "vaccines" when State employees become pregnant, as a condition of keeping their jobs?
At what point does Jacobson become inapt because of the changes in the meanings of the words that provide the very foundation of Jacobson?
Or even more likely in deep-Blue states...
If the definition of "vaccine" were expanded to include The Pill on the grounds that it prevents the condition of pregnancy, would Jacobson grant states the power to mandate the use of The Pill for all State employees, as a condition of keeping their jobs?
WE were the ones ecstatic over ACB. WE were the ones who said that she should've been nominated when Kavanaugh got the nod, and WE insisted that she be next. That's on us, not Trump.
And Anthony Kennedy wouldn't've retired if he didn't get a say in his replacement. That's why Kavanaugh is there. That's on Kennedy (who, still, would be worse than Kavanaugh), not Trump.
Gorsuch is on Trump. And Gorsuch is largely a stellar Justice.
As for OWS, that was a noble effort, given what was and wasn't known at the time. What it turned into is thanks to Biden et al.
And though Trump still claims the vax is "safe & effective", at no point did he ever imply let alone declare that he wanted it to be mandatory. Still never has. He warp-sped it so that it would be *available* to anyone who wants it. It's the Left and Democrat Party (and a few GOP squishes) who turned it into a weapon of tyranny and despotism.
Jacobson was before the Civil Rights Act and the ADA
Sorry to be barking up the Jacobson tree again, but...it seems to me that:
When language is narrow and specific we cannot and must *not* use today’s language to understand yesterday’s use of that language. Similarly, when language is broad and general, we can and *must* use today’s language to understand yesterday’s use of that language.
The Second Amendment did not protect “the right to keep and bear muskets”. That would’ve been narrow and specific, and today we’d be obligated to interpret 2A within the context of what a “musket” is. Obviously, AR15s and 9mms are not muskets, and would not be protected.
2A was broad and general – "the right to keep and bear *arms*" – and so we can and must use today's language to understand the meaning of 2A in the context of the word “arms”.
2A was also narrow and specific – “a well-regulated militia” – and so we cannot and must not use today’s language to understand the meaning of “a well-regulated militia”. We must use yesterday’s language.
If Jacobson had validated state-mandated “drugs” or “medicines” (broad and general), we’d use today’s definitions, and Jacobson would be a valid precedent for state-imposed vaxx mandates.
BUT Jacobson only validated state-mandated *vaccines* (narrow and specific), so the definition of “vaccine” as it was understood THEN should be what matters.
That is why Jacobson is invalid and inapt as precedent, IMHO.
The First Amendment references the broad, general "religion", not a specific Church or a specific denomination. It applies broadly to all religions, even ones founded *after* the Constitution was ratified.
It references the broad, general "freedom of speech", not specific forms of speech, and freedom "of the press", not specifically newspapers or broadsheets or pamphlets. It applies to all forms of speech and the press, even technologies of speech and press that were invented *after* the Constitution was ratified.
I'm no brainiac, so I cannot for the life of me understand why our brilliant black-robed Justices can't figure this sht out.
If the Supreme court keeps flushing the injection cases, then will employers feel they have license to deny employees’ religious accommodations? I work for a fed contractor and am preparing my RA but these decisions are very disheartening.
Good question. And sometimes the accommodation that is granted isn't a real solution. I have an exemption from my small firm in NYC but the accommodation is to work to from which is not doable for me long term. I need to be in the office (unmasked). Really the only solution here is that it need to be understood that any vaccine or injection mandates are, in principal, illegitimate for government (at any level) to legislate or employers to enforce. I also include any vax mandates that schools require as well.
...but the accommodation is to work from home which is not.....
Forgot to add— i work in NYC so there’s the city mandate too.
ALWAYS follow the money. Mankind is so pathetically predictable. Love of money is the root of all evil, huh? I cannot fathom the mindset of willingly taking financial gain at the expense of the literal life, liberty, and happiness of others.
Politicians making money off of vaccines they force on the taxpayers. So the taxpayers unwillingly fund the private pharmaceutical companies through our taxes, and then the politicians force taxpayers to use the funded product we didn’t even want, so our tax dollars can essentially fund their beach houses that they tell us not to buy due to the global “climate change crisis”. Ok this isn’t tyranny at all.
If you think Russians don’t have a Free Press and can’t criticize their Government, you should read this.
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/russians-say-nyet-to-the-great-reset
BIG CORPORATIONS ABANDON ILLEGAL VAxx MANDATES
US Mega-Corporations Rush to Abandon Illegal Vax Mandates
Oopsie. The Biden Administration’s lawlessness over vaccine mandates has been exposed and along with it, the mega-corporate malfeasance that went along with it. With vanishing government support, these same companies are rushing to reverse their own mandates to avoid a lawsuit hell of their own. While government can hide behind legal immunity, corporations cannot. ⁃ TN Editor
https://www.technocracy.news/us-mega-corporations-rush-to-abandon-illegal-vax-mandates/
Is this for just one state?
What a great summary of today’s events. I live in the Uk and am sad I will most likely have to leave auschwitz, I mean England soon. Don’t the Brits and other Europeans remember ww2? Short memories. Probably because those who lived through the hardships are dead or near the age of death. Does the name Hitler ring any bells to the next generation? Guess not.
Asked a houseguest (a 12 yr old boy) recently if he knew what Pearl Harbor meant. Clueless; never heard of it. Sigh.
Question. If we get denied our Religious Exempt do we wait until they fire us or is it better we quit?
If you quit, that's on you. If you make them fire you, you may, once this stuff is all settled in the courts, have a wrongful termination case and get some compensation.
I was thinking that. I think they put them on leave first from what I’ve seen and go through a process. I’m in a tough spot as I need the health insurance which is for my whole family.
I believe the ObamaCare health care exchanges are open until early-mid January…might want to check out a cheap ,catastrophic policy for next year. Just in case. I believe you can get COBRA (if you are terminated) for 6 months but it’s expensive
Also, what if it’s an At will state you live in you can still possibly sue for wrongful termination for this vaccine?
I'm not a lawyer, but being denied a religious exemption smells like illegal discrimination to me.
What I am is an employer, and although too small to to be subject to any mandates, if I were subject to mandates, I would rubber stamp exemptions instantly.
If they deny your religious accommodation you might have a case. If they “approve” they can still fire you because you are placing an “undue hardship” on the company for simply breathing and existing.
Religious accommodations are a “de minimus” test to the company, that is, theoretically a $1 cost could be undue burden. With Covid they are arguing that you being in the office is a direct threat to your coworkers. It’s pathetic but what a lot are doing
Here is the thing-they are requiring REMOTE workers for the vaccine, I have been Remote BEFORE the pandemic even so this is so frustrating!
I'm thinking there is still a case for claiming 'constructive dismissal' if you resign. I consider the accommodations they gave me for my RE to constitute a hostile work environment, one I'm no longer willing to endure.
But I'm also thinking: where are all the lawyers? And not holding my breath.
Genuinely asking if you have any insight?
Jeff - wondering if you were able to find a source for "So." t-shirts and coffee cups?
lol
"Merry Christmas, brits! Hope you like your spike proteins. You can’t return them. Ever"? . I figured that out when I refused the first offer.
Ok, I'm finally ready to enlist in the C&C army! I kept thinking of it as a Florida thing, but I recognize the benefit to our country - I know I've seen it but can't find it but - where do I sign up, please?
Coffeeandcovid.com