Slate: "Judge still won't let the Navy deploy a warship"

[Seymour Flops]

U.S. District Judge Steven Douglas Merryday has effectively stopped the federal government from deploying a $1.8 billion warship and its 300-person crew, the Justice Department confirmed in a hearing at a federal courthouse in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday. The Navy will not deploy the ship, a guided-missile destroyer, until it can reassign the commanding officer, who refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccine. But Merryday, a George H.W. Bush nominee, is blocking the officer’s reassignment, claiming the move would violate his religious freedom.

Thursday’s evidentiary hearing allowed the Justice Department to make its case that Merryday’s order is directly interfering with military readiness. But the judge did not appear persuaded by the government’s arguments. It seems that Merryday will continue to threaten national security by seizing control of key naval operations until the Supreme Court steps in.

To Protect “Religious Freedom,” a Judge Still Won’t Let the Navy Deploy a Warship

Judge Steven Merryday showed no regrets about prohibiting the Navy from reassigning an anti-vaxxer.

slate.com

Ok, first of all, the judge did not order the Navy not to deploy its warship. The judge ordered the Navy not to take adverse action against the captain based on the captain's unvaccinated status. The Navy is perfectly free to deploy that ship at any time. It is the Navy that chooses to hold up the deployment of a warship due to the vaccination status of the captain.

So Slate's language is deliberately misleading and inflammatory, as is much of the coverage of the vaccine refusal movement.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the judge's ruling on this. The military has always been given deference in how it deals with its personnel, mainly because there is no time for such legal wrangling in time of war. Thanks to our incredibly inept president and vice president, we find ourselves on the brink of a world war at the moment. The Navy needs to be taking steps to prepare for that, not screwing around in court.

I am very skeptical of any claims of a religious objection to the COVID vaccine. I doubt that the commander objects on religious grounds to all vaccines. I doubt he would be in the Navy if he did.

But what if we knew that the vaccine mandates were politically motivated, that there is no long-term data on their effectiveness and safety, that they have shown to be very dangerous to healthy young people, and that they do not provide immunity from COVID as the term "immunization" suggests?

Well . . . we do know all that. informed people know that all of those are true. So the objection is not based on religion, but on informed judgement.

For obvious reasons, the framers did not list "informed judgement" as a right to be protected under the bill of rights. Which is good for the military. If its members used informed judgement instead of following orders, how many of them would wade through the waved to an enemy beach?

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Since WHEN do judges have this kind of power?

 

[1srelluc]

 

[White 6]

Add another ensign if at full strength, above line/paragraph, TO&E. Everybody above moves up as/if necessary, the ship sails on to perform it's tasks, second in command assuming duties, with the present captain, misses the departure movement, while his case is settled on land.

 

[Moonglow]

Since WHEN do judges have this kind of power?

When it involves Constitutional rights.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Add another ensign if at full strength, above line/paragraph, TO&E. Everybody above moves up as/if necessary, the ship sails on to perform it's tasks, second in command assuming duties, with the present captain, misses the departure movement, while his case is settled on land.

Exactly. When I was in the military, we were constantly aware of what to do if the commander were taken out of action. Imagine an infantry battalion on deployment turning back because the battalion commander died. It would never happen. The two lowest privates in that battalion would know exactly which was more senior in case it got down to the two of them.

Suppose the commander were to change his mind this afternoon and get the shot first thing Monday morning so the boat can sail. Sudden death has been a common reaction to the so-called "vaccine," among young people who get regular exercise. If that happens a week into the voyage, the XO will take over.

The Navy is politicizing this on behalf of the Democratic Party.

 

[TeeDub]

Since WHEN do judges have this kind of power?

When did you awaken from you decades of sleep?

 

[BackAgain]

U.S. District Judge Steven Douglas Merryday has effectively stopped the federal government from deploying a $1.8 billion warship and its 300-person crew, the Justice Department confirmed in a hearing at a federal courthouse in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday. The Navy will not deploy the ship, a guided-missile destroyer, until it can reassign the commanding officer, who refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccine. But Merryday, a George H.W. Bush nominee, is blocking the officer’s reassignment, claiming the move would violate his religious freedom.

Thursday’s evidentiary hearing allowed the Justice Department to make its case that Merryday’s order is directly interfering with military readiness. But the judge did not appear persuaded by the government’s arguments. It seems that Merryday will continue to threaten national security by seizing control of key naval operations until the Supreme Court steps in.

To Protect “Religious Freedom,” a Judge Still Won’t Let the Navy Deploy a Warship

Judge Steven Merryday showed no regrets about prohibiting the Navy from reassigning an anti-vaxxer.

slate.com

Ok, first of all, the judge did not order the Navy not to deploy its warship. The judge ordered the Navy not to take adverse action against the captain based on the captain's unvaccinated status. The Navy is perfectly free to deploy that ship at any time. It is the Navy that chooses to hold up the deployment of a warship due to the vaccination status of the captain.

So Slate's language is deliberately misleading and inflammatory, as is much of the coverage of the vaccine refusal movement.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the judge's ruling on this. The military has always been given deference in how it deals with its personnel, mainly because there is no time for such legal wrangling in time of war. Thanks to our incredibly inept president and vice president, we find ourselves on the brink of a world war at the moment. The Navy needs to be taking steps to prepare for that, not screwing around in court.

I am very skeptical of any claims of a religious objection to the COVID vaccine. I doubt that the commander objects on religious grounds to all vaccines. I doubt he would be in the Navy if he did.

But what if we knew that the vaccine mandates were politically motivated, that there is no long-term data on their effectiveness and safety, that they have shown to be very dangerous to healthy young people, and that they do not provide immunity from COVID as the term "immunization" suggests?

Well . . . we do know all that. informed people know that all of those are true. So the objection is not based on religion, but on informed judgement.

For obvious reasons, the framers did not list "informed judgement" as a right to be protected under the bill of rights. Which is good for the military. If its members used informed judgement instead of following orders, how many of them would wade through the waved to an enemy beach?

Whether the judge is properly inserting the court into this matter may be debatable. But the analysis you offered, Seymour, seems accurate.

If the Navy cannot “dispense” with the captain over this COVID issue, that does not mean that the judge is preventing the Navy from deploying the ship. The Navy has made that latter decision on its own, when they don’t have to.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

U.S. District Judge Steven Douglas Merryday has effectively stopped the federal government from deploying a $1.8 billion warship and its 300-person crew, the Justice Department confirmed in a hearing at a federal courthouse in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday. The Navy will not deploy the ship, a guided-missile destroyer, until it can reassign the commanding officer, who refuses to get the COVID-19 vaccine. But Merryday, a George H.W. Bush nominee, is blocking the officer’s reassignment, claiming the move would violate his religious freedom.

Thursday’s evidentiary hearing allowed the Justice Department to make its case that Merryday’s order is directly interfering with military readiness. But the judge did not appear persuaded by the government’s arguments. It seems that Merryday will continue to threaten national security by seizing control of key naval operations until the Supreme Court steps in.

To Protect “Religious Freedom,” a Judge Still Won’t Let the Navy Deploy a Warship

Judge Steven Merryday showed no regrets about prohibiting the Navy from reassigning an anti-vaxxer.

slate.com

Ok, first of all, the judge did not order the Navy not to deploy its warship. The judge ordered the Navy not to take adverse action against the captain based on the captain's unvaccinated status. The Navy is perfectly free to deploy that ship at any time. It is the Navy that chooses to hold up the deployment of a warship due to the vaccination status of the captain.

So Slate's language is deliberately misleading and inflammatory, as is much of the coverage of the vaccine refusal movement.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the judge's ruling on this. The military has always been given deference in how it deals with its personnel, mainly because there is no time for such legal wrangling in time of war. Thanks to our incredibly inept president and vice president, we find ourselves on the brink of a world war at the moment. The Navy needs to be taking steps to prepare for that, not screwing around in court.

I am very skeptical of any claims of a religious objection to the COVID vaccine. I doubt that the commander objects on religious grounds to all vaccines. I doubt he would be in the Navy if he did.

But what if we knew that the vaccine mandates were politically motivated, that there is no long-term data on their effectiveness and safety, that they have shown to be very dangerous to healthy young people, and that they do not provide immunity from COVID as the term "immunization" suggests?

Well . . . we do know all that. informed people know that all of those are true. So the objection is not based on religion, but on informed judgement.

For obvious reasons, the framers did not list "informed judgement" as a right to be protected under the bill of rights. Which is good for the military. If its members used informed judgement instead of following orders, how many of them would wade through the waved to an enemy beach?

What we have here is a mess of fucked-up policies based on fucked-up premises, and fucked-up rulings trying to create any sort of fucked-up justice out of the whole mess.

And the GIGO principle is fully at work, here.

What needs to happen is for the COVID-1984 mandates themselves to be brought to court, and thrown out as an absurd and unjustifiable abuse of power on the part of certain corrupt elements in government, and as an abuse of basic human rights. Throw that out, and the rest of this mess will sort itself our very nicely.