That shame is exemplified by what should be our leading court. As reported late yesterday, but I was too discouraged to write about it: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Friday denied a request from a group of New York City teachers to block the city’s vaccine mandate for public school employees.
India's Supreme Court has just declared that all mandates must stop throughout India. Health Freedom is winning in India. The US continues to play along with the evil globalist cabal. What do Sotamayor and Amy Commie Bennett stand to gain from destroying the lives of US citizens? Have their lives been threatened? Are they being paid huge sums of money? This is incomprehensible. They can't possibly believe the bioweapons have any benefit, and they must know the jabs are killing millions of people around the world. Are they under the sway of the MSM? God help us.
"Federal Judge in South Carolina Denies Restraining Order to Block Vaccine Mandates”
“ Tom Fernandez and his firm Fernandez Law represented the plaintiffs, 100 of whom are first responders who filed a lawsuit against the cities of Charleston and North Charleston, Charleston County, and the St. Johns Fire District over the mandates.
“They felt that it was nothing short of government coercion to get the vaccine,” Fernandez told The Epoch Times. “We filed a lawsuit in state court alleging their constitutional protections. They did not want the vaccine. They believed it was their religious right to refuse it. They believed it was their right to free speech, right to privacy, and their right to bodily autonomy to not get the vaccine.”
Judge David Norton with the U.S. District Court in South Carolina said in a statement that it’s not the court’s role to impose employer policies that would “best strike a balance of the competing interests of a pandemic that has plagued not just this state or country, but the world, for almost two years.”
“His points he made in his order yesterday were basically regurgitated nightly news talking points,” Fernandez said. “They had no facts. There was nothing substantiative. It was basically, ‘COVID is an emergency and hospitals are full. There are no ventilators available, and that the ICUs have no more beds available.’”
Keep in mind that the government did not order anybody to take the vaccine; instead it required all contractors, etc. to ensure all of their employees are vaccinated. Is there a case to be made that the government cannot set such restrictions upon its contractors?
It is we, the citizens, who refuse to push back against government idiocy; refusing to work for, or refusing to buy products and services from the companies that acquiesce to governmental demands is the only way to halt government aggression.
Expecting the courts to impose restrictions on private parties only contributes to the loss of freedom and liberty. Once such restrictions are deemed acceptable, the next turn may very well be in a direction that we all will regret.
My guess is the court is desperately trying to avoid controversy, again.
Glenn Reynolds posted:
IRONICALLY, IT’S AT LEAST PARTLY A CONSEQUENCE OF JOHN ROBERTS’ EXCESSIVE CONCERN WITH THE COURT’S POPULARITY: Does the Supreme Court’s Declining Popularity Matter?
India's Supreme Court has just declared that all mandates must stop throughout India. Health Freedom is winning in India. The US continues to play along with the evil globalist cabal. What do Sotamayor and Amy Commie Bennett stand to gain from destroying the lives of US citizens? Have their lives been threatened? Are they being paid huge sums of money? This is incomprehensible. They can't possibly believe the bioweapons have any benefit, and they must know the jabs are killing millions of people around the world. Are they under the sway of the MSM? God help us.
Shame on this North Carolina judge:
"Federal Judge in South Carolina Denies Restraining Order to Block Vaccine Mandates”
“ Tom Fernandez and his firm Fernandez Law represented the plaintiffs, 100 of whom are first responders who filed a lawsuit against the cities of Charleston and North Charleston, Charleston County, and the St. Johns Fire District over the mandates.
“They felt that it was nothing short of government coercion to get the vaccine,” Fernandez told The Epoch Times. “We filed a lawsuit in state court alleging their constitutional protections. They did not want the vaccine. They believed it was their religious right to refuse it. They believed it was their right to free speech, right to privacy, and their right to bodily autonomy to not get the vaccine.”
Judge David Norton with the U.S. District Court in South Carolina said in a statement that it’s not the court’s role to impose employer policies that would “best strike a balance of the competing interests of a pandemic that has plagued not just this state or country, but the world, for almost two years.”
“His points he made in his order yesterday were basically regurgitated nightly news talking points,” Fernandez said. “They had no facts. There was nothing substantiative. It was basically, ‘COVID is an emergency and hospitals are full. There are no ventilators available, and that the ICUs have no more beds available.’”
More here:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/federal-judge-in-south-carolina-denies-restraining-order-to-block-vaccine-mandates_4064033.html?
Keep in mind that the government did not order anybody to take the vaccine; instead it required all contractors, etc. to ensure all of their employees are vaccinated. Is there a case to be made that the government cannot set such restrictions upon its contractors?
It is we, the citizens, who refuse to push back against government idiocy; refusing to work for, or refusing to buy products and services from the companies that acquiesce to governmental demands is the only way to halt government aggression.
Expecting the courts to impose restrictions on private parties only contributes to the loss of freedom and liberty. Once such restrictions are deemed acceptable, the next turn may very well be in a direction that we all will regret.
I believe precedent was set by SC AC-B a couple of months ago regarding Indiana. She did the same thing Sotomayor did only earlier.
My guess is the court is desperately trying to avoid controversy, again.
Glenn Reynolds posted:
IRONICALLY, IT’S AT LEAST PARTLY A CONSEQUENCE OF JOHN ROBERTS’ EXCESSIVE CONCERN WITH THE COURT’S POPULARITY: Does the Supreme Court’s Declining Popularity Matter?
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/476957/
Anyone else see this study by Didier Rault just published last week on HCQ?
What happened to right to try?
https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm2203116
"Among the 10,429 ambulatory patients, there were 16
deaths (0.15%) (Table 1, Figs. 1,3. No patient under 60 years
of age died (0/8414 (0%), 95% confidence interval 0.0% to
0.4%) (Fig. 3). Therefore, the IFR among the 2015 patients
aged 60 and over was 0.8%. 11/16 deaths (70%) were common
to both data sources (DIM & NRDP). Two were identified
only with the DIM, and three were identified only with
the NRDP. The median age of the decedents was 78 years
(interquartile age 6982 years), and 12/16 (75%) were male.
Thirteen (81%) had a Charlson score GE 5, corresponding to a
risk of death within one year of more than 85%, so that only
three were expected not to die in the following year. Among
13 patients with a known cause of death, 12 presented with
respiratory failure, 1 presented with anaphylactic and septic
shock after dexamethasone, one presented with neurological
failure, and 6 presented with severe coagulopathy. None of
the deaths with a known cause were related to a side effect
of hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin or a torsade de
pointe."
"There were 5 deaths among the 8315 patients who received
HCQ+AZ (0.6 on 1000 patients) and 11 among the
2114 who received other treatments (p < 0.0001). There
were 9 deaths among the 1091 patients who received AZ
alone (0.82%) and 2 deaths among those who received no
treatment. In the multivariable logistic regression, age, sex,
and treatment, but not epidemic period, were associated
with a significant difference in the risk of death (Table 2).
HCQ+AZ was associated with a significant 83% decrease in
the risk of death (0.17, 0.060.48) independent of age, sex or
epidemic period.
The cardiotoxicity of HCQ, previously considered irrelevant
to oral administration and usual doses [33], has been
exaggerated by studies with a potential conflict of interest,
notably in the retracted article published in the Lancet [34].
White [33] showed that the concentrations needed to inhibit
the hERG channel responsible for QT prolongation were 4 to
14 times higher than the concentrations observed in plasma
at usual doses. In our center, we developed a smartwatch
electrocardiogram and artificial intelligence for assessing the
cardiac rhythm safety of HCQ+AZ and did not find any QTc
prolongation."
The essay about "Power Play" is by Mark T. Mitchell, at https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/public-health-or-power-play/ .
Is the judicial system--from bottom to top--illegitimate and should it either be ignored or razed to the ground and the earth salted?
65% say "yes."
13% "undecided" and only
22% say "no."