Supreme Court ruling on mandates may depend
on how the justices value vaccines
CNN,
by
Joan Biskupic
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
1/8/2022 10:34:55 AM
As the Supreme Court debated federal authority to impose a vaccine requirement on workers, the nine justices could not help but reveal their varying sentiments about the depth of America's Covid-19 pandemic and the value of vaccines.(snip)
Until Friday, only Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has diabetes and has taken extra precautions with her health, had worn a mask during the justices' oral arguments. (snip)"It seems to me that the more and more mandates pop up in different agencies," he said, "I wonder if it's not fair for us to ask the questions of, well, why doesn't Congress have a say in this, and why doesn't this be the primary responsibility of
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Hairy Eyeball 1/8/2022 10:39:03 AM (No. 1032087)
"Supreme Court ruling on mandates may depend
on how the justices value the Constitution."
Fixed it for ya CNN.
29 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Anti_democRAT 1/8/2022 10:44:42 AM (No. 1032101)
Thier belief of the value of the jab means nothing. The constitution means everything. That is thier job how does the constitution constrain the government from forcing experimental medical treatment on the citizens.
25 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 1/8/2022 10:44:46 AM (No. 1032102)
Oh it is not about how they interpret the constitution and the limits of the President. Considering this nation is lawless and the courts are lawless the mandates will be upheld as part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and global population reduction.
9 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
curious1 1/8/2022 10:48:13 AM (No. 1032110)
Well, since the jabs clearly aren't 'vaccines', then the court's decision should be a no-brainer, just like the leftards on the court have no brains.
14 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
stablemoney 1/8/2022 10:58:44 AM (No. 1032132)
The SC will uphold the mandates. If you are not willing to ignore the mandates, you will be getting booster shots twice a year until you die.
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Venturer 1/8/2022 11:08:07 AM (No. 1032142)
The Omicron type flu is the one we assume is causing all of this new flu to show up and there are claims that it is mild and not much mor than a cold. When have we ever kept a running count of how many people caugh a clod in the winter?
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Califedup 1/8/2022 11:13:58 AM (No. 1032153)
Relying on the corrupted, deep swamp, Unsupreme Court to rule against these evil mandates using our Constitution as a guide is a fool's errand. Don't hold your breath.
5 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
SkeezerMcGee 1/8/2022 11:23:20 AM (No. 1032167)
These cases are not about the U.S. Constitution. The questions are: Has Congress authorized the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue these COVID related mandates?
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Toby Ten Bears 1/8/2022 11:24:11 AM (No. 1032170)
What about the Constitution? I guess we're on our own.
11 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
skacmar 1/8/2022 11:28:07 AM (No. 1032174)
The number of illnesses and effectiveness of vaccines is irrelevant. The only question before the court is "are the vaccine mandates constitutional "? Simple. The justices need to put their personal feelings and fears aside here, remove all of their emotions, and judge purely based on the US Constitution.
13 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Heil Liberals 1/8/2022 11:31:55 AM (No. 1032183)
CNN would prefer killing a chicken and reading its entrails to actually following the Constitution of the United States.
7 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Delilah 1/8/2022 11:57:55 AM (No. 1032217)
Sotomayor's mask does nothing but keep the spit in when she coughs or sneezes. But it does make her look better.
7 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 1/8/2022 12:03:50 PM (No. 1032226)
1) These mRNA shots are NOT 'vaccines'. They do not meet the definitions of vaccines which have been in use for decades.
2) These mRNA shots do NOT prevent the disease.
3) These mRNA shots do NOT prevent transmission of the disease to others.
How could you value them? They are worthless for disease prevention and dangerous to the health of those to take them.
10 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
lakerman1 1/8/2022 12:18:36 PM (No. 1032250)
If Sotomayor, a diabetic, really 'watched her health,' she would not be morbidly obese.
Morbid obesity is about the worst thing a diabetic can have - almost as bad as replacing her insulin injecxtiuons with pure sugar solution injections.
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 1/8/2022 12:32:03 PM (No. 1032269)
RE #14--- yes, that's where the "morbid" part comes from in 'morbidly obese'.....it will kill you.
2 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Rubinski 1/8/2022 1:06:23 PM (No. 1032300)
#13 Everything you said is true—except the CDC did change the definition of vaccine (a few times) so that the Covid shots are still falling under the definition of vaccine.
2 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Pucky1 1/8/2022 1:29:56 PM (No. 1032323)
No, Joan. The Supreme Court is NOT considering the OSHA and order) to
No, Joan, The Supreme Court is NOT considering the efficacy of vaccines. It is considering whether Joe Biden, via the Executive branch (OSHA and orders) to inflict medical procedures on U.S. citizens.
You had best hope he doesn't prevail lest a future President orders a lobotomy on you...brain dead CNN.
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
franq 1/8/2022 1:58:10 PM (No. 1032341)
CNN. It figures. Frame the issue in an absurd way.
2 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
bpl40 1/8/2022 2:10:19 PM (No. 1032348)
How about depending on how they value liberty.
2 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
curious1 1/8/2022 2:35:39 PM (No. 1032365)
As for congress passing a mandate to get jabbed - show me where in the constitution they were granted that power. (Hint: They weren't.) It's a tenth amendment issue - at the state level, NOT the federal level.
3 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
MickTurn 1/8/2022 3:13:54 PM (No. 1032408)
All I can say is that IF Scotus allows the Mandates, their legitimacy is Null and VOID!
NOTHING in the Constitution allows forced medical procedures on citizens, anyone that says it does is clueless and needs to go straight to PRISON!
2 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
DVC 1/8/2022 3:15:29 PM (No. 1032410)
Re #16.....in order to be accurate I carefully chose my words,".... the definitions of vaccines which have been in use for decades."
Unlike the CDC, I work at being accurate.
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
smokincol 1/8/2022 4:23:55 PM (No. 1032471)
"Supreme Court ruling on mandates may depend on how the justices value vaccines" wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong - the Supreme Court was instituted to consider the constitutionality of a law and nothing else. this isn't even a "law" and the debate should have only lasted three minutes and ended with the question: is the mandate legal? case closed.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
MickTurn 1/8/2022 5:55:41 PM (No. 1032552)
Well, if we go by how badly the Vax's work, there's no case here for efficacy.
1 person likes this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
mifla 1/9/2022 5:52:59 AM (No. 1032810)
Justice Sotomayer, did the government tell you how your diabetes should be treated?
Personal feelings have nothing to do with this. Only the Constitution.
1 person likes this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
ConradCA 1/9/2022 11:55:29 AM (No. 1033110)
How effective the vaccine is is irrelevant. The constitution doesn’t give the federal government the power to force people to vaccinate.
The main reason for people refusing to vaccinate is the huge number of lies told by the progressive fascists in the last ten years. People know that the news media and progressive fascist politicians are bald faced liars.
Remember, Obama’s “you can keep your insurance” lie? While at the same time he and Grubber were writing regulations that forced insurance companies to break his promise! Then he had the gall to claim that people were too stupid to realize that he was lying to them!
Then there was the progressive fascists attempt to frame president Trump with their Russian collusion lie? Even after spending $23 million the progressive fascist special couldn’t find any proof!
How about Biden’s clam that he was running as a moderate and after the election has become the furthest left president ever.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
The last remark in the intro came from CJ Roberts. This article tells us where diabetic Sotomayor’s fears probably push her pro-mandate bias…. Never mind the Constitution and the impact of other (many) future federal agency mandates, to which the SCOTUS ruling would open the door.