3 Comments
User's avatar
Lawrence L.'s avatar

"This is the slippery slope that these maniacs want to place the kids on."

These people MUST pay a steep, steep price for their maniacal evil. I would lay down my life to keep my grandchildren from getting jabbed.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Oct 23, 2021
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Mark Wauck's avatar

I see it says it does even more than act as an ionophore. I'll have to read that.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment removed
Oct 22, 2021
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Skeptical VA's avatar

I am unsure on SCOTUS. Often times, their acceptance or rejection of a case is on the merits made by the specific plaintiff. If that plaintiff's case is poorly constructed, they reject it. I think we saw this on the Texas abortion law, where the left accused SCOTUS of endorsing the Texas legislation, but it seems they simply observed that no harms had been done yet due to the design of the law (individuals allowed to sue, not the state).

I also hold out hope they are waiting for the "right" case that is both meaningful (ie not a single university's vaccine mandate, but rather OSHA's broad mandate) and more useful for broader precedent setting. We've certainly seen crafty legislators and regulators design new rules around existing SCOTUS rulings.

All that said, I fear you are right and they are choosing to skip this issue in the possibly naive hope we can resolve it outside of the courts.

Expand full comment