What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Judge uses invalid case to deny Oregon employees protection against forced vaccination

OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
1,164
Points
200
It's good to see NYC residents are still rising up against the authoritarian vaccine mandate crap!
.
.
JWK
.

The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, has now GONE MAD
.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,988
Reaction score
1,164
Points
200
I am still waiting for someone to explain why the protection of "strict scrutiny" should not be applied to government mandated vaccinations.

The protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is a COVID vaccination that is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the government mandated vaccination:

(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,

(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,

(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.

Do you not agree that our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, teachers and healthcare workers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law?

Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.

Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?


JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, has now GONE MAD
 

rightnow909

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2021
Messages
1,064
Reaction score
764
Points
1,893
I am still waiting for someone to explain why the protection of "strict scrutiny" should not be applied to government mandated vaccinations.

The protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is a COVID vaccination that is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the government mandated vaccination:

(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,

(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,

(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.

Do you not agree that our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, teachers and healthcare workers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law?

Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.

Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?


JWK


The Democrat Party Leadership, once an advocate for hard working American citizens and their families, has now GONE MAD
"narrowly tailored"

and

"scientific"

are subjective terms these days... so yeh, basically woke-infested pols can do whatever they want and now we can't even vote them out..
 

BertramN

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2016
Messages
3,181
Reaction score
2,615
Points
1,970
It still needs to be framed in the proper perspective. It's all about the rights of a few individuals against preserving the rights of the many.
The trump Nazis' long history as RWNJs has always put their rights above all others.

Becoming trump Nazis during the years since their orange-tinted cult leader began his first presidential campaign in 2015 hasn't changed this aspect.



.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
33,162
Reaction score
21,593
Points
1,915
It's all about the rights of a few individuals against preserving the rights of the many.

Can we use it to terminate people with over expansive carbon footprints?
 

Deplorable Yankee

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
11,745
Reaction score
8,943
Points
2,265
Location
DIXIE
SEE: Federal judge denies effort to block Oregon’s vaccine mandate by 7 workers who had COVID-19 (msn.com)

In the court’s Opinion and Order we find the following by Judge Ann Aiken:

"Plaintiffs contend that the vaccine mandates implicate a fundamental right to bodily integrity and privacy and that strict scrutiny should apply.

“As the Seventh Circuit recently noted, “such an argument depends on the existence of a fundamental right ingrained in the American legal tradition.”

“Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in which the Supreme Court sustained a criminal conviction for refusing to be vaccinated."


What Judge Aiken seems to intentionally ignore is, JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS was decided decades before our judicial system adopted the strict scrutiny standard to protect American citizens whenever a government action infringes upon a fundamental right.

How on earth can Judge Aiken truthfully assert the “Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)”, which is prior to our judicial system having adopted the protection of “strict scrutiny”?

The unavoidable truth is, JACOBSON is outdated and irrelevant with respect to today’s circumstances. An abundance of case law today commands that whenever a fundamental right of American citizens is infringed upon by a government act, and the right is claimed to be infringed upon, the act is to be viewed as being “presumptively unconstitutional” and to resolve the issue, the protection of strict scrutiny kicks in.

Heck, even in JACOBSON which Judge Aiken references, the court confirms: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force…”

Perhaps judge Aiken was really asserting the Plaintiffs’ medical privacy, decisions, choices’, and autonomy is not within that bundle of rights which American citizens have long held to be fundamental, and if infringed upon by a government act, do not deserve the protection of strict scrutiny? If so, she ought to have explained what our Supreme Court was saying in Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990)? “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."

And with regard to the meaning of a force with respect to a government mandated vaccination, our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.

Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.

And now, let us keep in mind the protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the act of government:

(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,

(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,

(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.

Our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, and teachers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law.

Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.

Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?


JWK
The courts are also heavily compromised.....by retards .
No one is coming to save you ,me ,or aunt sally

gggghhhnnjjnnn.jpg



s.e,d,,d,d,r,rdf.png
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
It still needs to be framed in the proper perspective. It's all about the rights of a few individuals against preserving the rights of the many.

Wrong.
This was about an exception for 7 state workers who have already contracted COVID-19, recovered, so had natural immunity.
Therefore absolutely nothing at all is gained for anyone by mandating they be vaccinated for double redundant immunity.
 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
People are not free to have their cake and eat it to and it does happen all the time that they are forced to either get vaccines or be denied their cake.

Wrong.
As in the case of Typhoid Mary, if she would have had her gallbladder removed, she would have been disease free.
But there was no legal way to force her to have it done.


In the case of vaccinations, no one else is being protected by forcing those already immune, to risk vaccination with no possible benefit to anyone.
 

Lesh

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
35,454
Reaction score
14,161
Points
1,560
It's a totally valid precedent
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
18,721
Reaction score
5,916
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
It's a totally valid precedent

Not in any way at all is it valid, much less a precedent.
You can infringe upon the rights of one only when absolutely necessary in order to uphold the rights of another.
But an vaccine does not at all improve anything for anyone when the patient already has superior recovery immunity.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
39,506
Reaction score
30,591
Points
2,905
Location
Arizona

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$80.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top