Judge: No adverse action against Navy sailors for refusing vaccine

[task0778]

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

The Navy required all active-duty sailors to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 28, or else face potential discharge.

Last month, the branch announced that it had given commanders guidance to move forward with issuing administrative separations for service members who did not get vaccinated.

What the judge said: Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas called the Navy’s religious accommodation process “by all accounts ... theater,” adding the branch “merely rubber stamps each denial.”

“Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect,” O’Connor wrote.

“The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution,” he added.

About the lawsuit: A group of 35 Navy Special Warfare service members — including SEALs, special warfare combatant craft crewmen, divers and an explosive ordnance disposal technician — filed a lawsuit challenging the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Nov. 9, contending that the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate breached their religious freedom.

The plaintiffs had the backing of 47 Republican lawmakers, who filed an amicus brief last month in support of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit named President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon told The Hill that it is studying the decision and referred questions to the Justice Department “as this matter involves litigation.”

Judge blocks Pentagon from taking 'any adverse action' against sailors who have refused vaccine

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

thehill.com

Bravo!

 

[Dadoalex]

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

The Navy required all active-duty sailors to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 28, or else face potential discharge.

Last month, the branch announced that it had given commanders guidance to move forward with issuing administrative separations for service members who did not get vaccinated.

What the judge said: Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas called the Navy’s religious accommodation process “by all accounts ... theater,” adding the branch “merely rubber stamps each denial.”

“Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect,” O’Connor wrote.

“The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution,” he added.

About the lawsuit: A group of 35 Navy Special Warfare service members — including SEALs, special warfare combatant craft crewmen, divers and an explosive ordnance disposal technician — filed a lawsuit challenging the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Nov. 9, contending that the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate breached their religious freedom.

The plaintiffs had the backing of 47 Republican lawmakers, who filed an amicus brief last month in support of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit named President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon told The Hill that it is studying the decision and referred questions to the Justice Department “as this matter involves litigation.”

Judge blocks Pentagon from taking 'any adverse action' against sailors who have refused vaccine

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

thehill.com

Bravo!

It will be overturned.

The military has many exceptions to Constitutional guarantees and the ability to ensure force readiness is one of the reasons they can't just:
Walk away from the service like you can leave a job;
Make public statements against the service while in uniform or representing as a member;
Tell a superior to eff-off in response to an order.

 

[skews13]

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

The Navy required all active-duty sailors to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 28, or else face potential discharge.

Last month, the branch announced that it had given commanders guidance to move forward with issuing administrative separations for service members who did not get vaccinated.

What the judge said: Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas called the Navy’s religious accommodation process “by all accounts ... theater,” adding the branch “merely rubber stamps each denial.”

“Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect,” O’Connor wrote.

“The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution,” he added.

About the lawsuit: A group of 35 Navy Special Warfare service members — including SEALs, special warfare combatant craft crewmen, divers and an explosive ordnance disposal technician — filed a lawsuit challenging the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Nov. 9, contending that the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate breached their religious freedom.

The plaintiffs had the backing of 47 Republican lawmakers, who filed an amicus brief last month in support of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit named President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon told The Hill that it is studying the decision and referred questions to the Justice Department “as this matter involves litigation.”

Judge blocks Pentagon from taking 'any adverse action' against sailors who have refused vaccine

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

thehill.com

Bravo!

Don't bravo to fast. A civilian court has no jurisdiction over the Navy's decisions. Those plaintiffs are under the UCMJ, and the final decision rests with a General Courts Martial. The Navy has every authority to kick all of them out of service, and no civilian court can overturn that decision.

 

[eagle1462010]

bump

 

[eagle1462010]

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Navy-SEALs-PI-Order-.pdf

 

[Blackrook]

I don't have a religious objection to the vaccine.

I don't want to be vaccinated because when my paralegal got vaccinated, she was out sick for two weeks.

My reason should be good enough.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I don't have a religious objection to the vaccine.

I don't want to be vaccinated because when my paralegal got vaccinated, she was out sick for two weeks.

My reason should be good enough.

Damn right!

I don't want to be "vaccinated" because I don't want to be "vaccinated". That's all the reason anybody needs.

 

[night_son]

I don't have a religious objection to the vaccine.

I don't want to be vaccinated because when my paralegal got vaccinated, she was out sick for two weeks.

My reason should be good enough.

ANY reason you have under the sun for not wanting to be COVID vaccinated is good enough.

 

[task0778]

Agreed. It should be up to the individual.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Don't bravo to fast. A civilian court has no jurisdiction over the Navy's decisions. Those plaintiffs are under the UCMJ, and the final decision rests with a General Courts Martial. The Navy has every authority to kick all of them out of service, and no civilian court can overturn that decision.

Well no....

Pentagon unveils new religious liberty policies after pressure from conservative lawmakers

While critics of the new regulation are concerned that this will encourage military superiors to push their religious beliefs on their fellow service members, proponents of the rule have hailed it a victory for religious liberty.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[ABikerSailor]

ANY reason you have under the sun for not wanting to be COVID vaccinated is good enough.

If you don't want the vaccination, don't get it. Just don't expect to serve in the military if they require you to be vaccinated. Military service is a PRIVLEGE not a right. If you are qualified and can meet the requirements set for the service you wish to join, you get to serve. If you aren't qualified or can't meet the requirements the service sets for it's members, you don't serve because you don't qualify. Many people would love to join the military for all the benefits it offers (travel, health care, steady pay, good retirement, etc.), but can't because they aren't qualified because of low ASVAB scores, too many civil convictions, not medically qualified, etc. Nothing says you have to serve, and there are qualifications you MUST meet if you want to. Don't want the vaccine when the military requires it? Fine. Go find another job other than the service.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Damn right!

I don't want to be "vaccinated" because I don't want to be "vaccinated". That's all the reason anybody needs.

Don't want the vaccine? Don't get it. But also, don't expect to be able to serve in the military if they require it. Nothing says that you have the right to serve in the military. Matter of fact, out of all the people in this country who are between 18 and 35 (age eligible to join), only 30 percent are qualified to serve. I was head classifier and LPO of Amarillo MEPS, and there were lots of people who badly wanted to serve for one reason or another, but because they weren't qualified, they weren't allowed in.

 

[Synthaholic]

Damn right!

I don't want to be "vaccinated" because I don't want to be "vaccinated". That's all the reason anybody needs.

Can you take that attitude with stop signs? Why not? What is the governmental authority that forces you to stop?

Can you take that attitude with paying your taxes? Why not? What is the governmental authority that forces you to pay?

 

[ABikerSailor]

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

The Navy required all active-duty sailors to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by Nov. 28, or else face potential discharge.

Last month, the branch announced that it had given commanders guidance to move forward with issuing administrative separations for service members who did not get vaccinated.

What the judge said: Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas called the Navy’s religious accommodation process “by all accounts ... theater,” adding the branch “merely rubber stamps each denial.”

“Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect,” O’Connor wrote.

“The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution,” he added.

About the lawsuit: A group of 35 Navy Special Warfare service members — including SEALs, special warfare combatant craft crewmen, divers and an explosive ordnance disposal technician — filed a lawsuit challenging the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Nov. 9, contending that the Navy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate breached their religious freedom.

The plaintiffs had the backing of 47 Republican lawmakers, who filed an amicus brief last month in support of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit named President Biden, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro and the Pentagon.

The Pentagon told The Hill that it is studying the decision and referred questions to the Justice Department “as this matter involves litigation.”

Judge blocks Pentagon from taking 'any adverse action' against sailors who have refused vaccine

A judge on Monday blocked the Pentagon from taking “any adverse action” against Navy sailors who have refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons.

thehill.com

Bravo!

Not only is the judge an idiot, but they also have zero idea about what service in the military entails. I lost about 75 percent of my rights as a US citizen when I joined. Free speech? Not a chance. I was not allowed to talk bad about my superiors or my service in public. Able to attend or join any group I wanted? Again, not a chance. If the military didn't approve of a certain group, I couldn't join them. Matter of fact, if I wanted to go to a rally of ANY kind, be it political or otherwise, I had to check with my PAO (Public Affairs Officer) to make sure it was allowed, and if it was allowed, there were certain rules I had to follow at the rally. Even though a military member might support one particular candidate over another, they cannot go to a rally of the candidate they support in uniform as the civilian community would take it as that service's support for that particular candidate, and one member does not speak for the whole military. The military is supposed to be apolitical. And, I couldn't join any group or attend any rally that would bring discredit to the military or the service I was in.

When the judge said this..............................

“Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect,” O’Connor wrote.

It was apparent that he didn't know anything about the military or the UCMJ that governs the conduct of members of the military. Yes, you do give up a lot of rights that are given to you by the Constitution when you sign your name on the dotted line to defend it.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Can you take that attitude with stop signs? Why not? What is the governmental authority that forces you to stop?

Can you take that attitude with paying your taxes? Why not? What is the governmental authority that forces you to pay?

You will now stop trying to convince us to take your poison. We have made up our minds. We are adults, not children whom you can cajole or shame or threaten. Give it up. There are no longer any of us undecided. You are not an influencer, no matter how many times you get paid for posting your drivel.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Don't want the vaccine? Don't get it. But also, don't expect to be able to serve in the military if they require it. Nothing says that you have the right to serve in the military. Matter of fact, out of all the people in this country who are between 18 and 35 (age eligible to join), only 30 percent are qualified to serve. I was head classifier and LPO of Amarillo MEPS, and there were lots of people who badly wanted to serve for one reason or another, but because they weren't qualified, they weren't allowed in.

Well, you just wasted a lot of words trying to make yourself sound superior. I am a 67 year old woman.

But by all means, keep wasting words. I think you're probably good at it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Not only is the judge an idiot, but they also have zero idea about what service in the military entails. I lost about 75 percent of my rights as a US citizen when I joined. Free speech? Not a chance. I was not allowed to talk bad about my superiors or my service in public. Able to attend or join any group I wanted? Again, not a chance. If the military didn't approve of a certain group, I couldn't join them. Matter of fact, if I wanted to go to a rally of ANY kind, be it political or otherwise, I had to check with my PAO (Public Affairs Officer) to make sure it was allowed, and if it was allowed, there were certain rules I had to follow at the rally. Even though a military member might support one particular candidate over another, they cannot go to a rally of the candidate they support in uniform as the civilian community would take it as that service's support for that particular candidate, and one member does not speak for the whole military. The military is supposed to be apolitical. And, I couldn't join any group or attend any rally that would bring discredit to the military or the service I was in.

When the judge said this..............................

“Our nation asks the men and women in our military to serve, suffer, and sacrifice. But we do not ask them to lay aside their citizenry and give up the very rights they have sworn to protect,” O’Connor wrote.

It was apparent that he didn't know anything about the military or the UCMJ that governs the conduct of members of the military. Yes, you do give up a lot of rights that are given to you by the Constitution when you sign your name on the dotted line to defend it.

Give it up, tough guy. You're not convincing anyone.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Seals are not really on trial here. The MOONBAT N Chief is on trial here. So far, Brandon is losing every single case in court.

And right now the injunctiin stands. Your move clowns.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Well, you just wasted a lot of words trying to make yourself sound superior. I am a 67 year old woman.

But by all means, keep wasting words. I think you're probably good at it.

So what if you are 67? Did you ever serve? Do you know all the requirements for a person to be eligible to enlist? I do, since I served over 20 years in the U.S. Navy, as well as spent the last 2 1/2 years of my career in recruiting.