- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@averagejoe1 saidMonarchy<????please
Mafruader may be saying it is an OSHA decision, as it well is. Thus saying that there still needs to be a SCOTUS ruling on requiring people to vax, period. I think they would rule the same way. You see, at least 5 of the justices are not into monarchy. That is why people left England in the early 1600's but I digress.
The other justices are into monarchy. No digression there!!!
George Washington, the foremost anti-monarch,
ORDERED SMALLPOX VAX for THE CONTINENTAL ARMY.
..........hello?............anyone home?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/30/viral-image/yes-george-washington-ordered-troops-be-inoculated/
https://health.mil/News/Articles/2021/08/16/Gen-George-Washington-Ordered-Smallpox-Inoculations-for-All-Troops
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
@jimm619 saidI dont read your leftist yahoo… I watched the hearings
More like a hung jury..........
You know he's guilty,
I know he's guilty,
and, it seems, most everyone does too.
Even McCarthy.........LOOK...READ
https://news.yahoo.com/kevin-mccarthy-reportedly-told-republicans-173453969.html
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
14 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidWell, third time's charmed.
I dont read your leftist yahoo… I watched the hearings
14 Jan 22
@averagejoe1 saidNo it isn't. The SCOTUS did not decide the case based on any imaginary right to not get vaccinated without consequences.
Uhhhh, looks like SCOTUS has overriden Your emotional stance.
So instead of arguing this with you, may I refer you to the Scotus decision as being my argument as well. Therefore my argument is backed by SCOTUS….. Who backs your argument?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
14 Jan 22
@no1marauder saidyeah I remember seeing you sitting there right next to sotomeyer, little head popping up every now and again
No it isn't. The SCOTUS did not decide the case based on any imaginary right to not get vaccinated without consequences.
@Mott-The-Hoople
SCOTUS has flipped from being mainly agnostic politically to full on republican right wingers and you know that full well, it will take another 100 years to overcome the damage to the US as a culture.
The future is going to be mixed race and there is NOTHING you can do or say that will change the FACT JACT that whitey is on its way out in the US as an overwhelming force for white rule.
I have no doubt we will lose our democracy for DECADES but I think maybe by the year 2100 we will be a real democracy again.
I hope you ultrarightwingnutjobs choke on your pyrrhic victory.
15 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidI read the decision; it's here if you want to look at it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
yeah I remember seeing you sitting there right next to sotomeyer, little head popping up every now and again
I invite you, Joe or anybody else to find in it any indication that the decision was based on a "right" not to be vaccinated against a deadly, contagious disease.
You could also look at this one where the SCOTUS upheld the vaccine "mandate" for health care workers in facilities that take Medicare or Medicaid (which is the vast majority of them): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
15 Jan 22
@no1marauder saidyou have no idea why they decided as they did, just your pious arrogance coming out.
I read the decision; it's here if you want to look at it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
I invite you, Joe or anybody else to find in it any indication that the decision was based on a "right" not to be vaccinated against a deadly, contagious disease.
You could also look at this one where the SCOTUS upheld the vaccine "mandate" for healt ...[text shortened]... id (which is the vast majority of them): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
15 Jan 22
@sonhouse saidfor there to be “mixed race” there will be no blackys either
@Mott-The-Hoople
SCOTUS has flipped from being mainly agnostic politically to full on republican right wingers and you know that full well, it will take another 100 years to overcome the damage to the US as a culture.
The future is going to be mixed race and there is NOTHING you can do or say that will change the FACT JACT that whitey is on its way out in the US as an ov ...[text shortened]... e will be a real democracy again.
I hope you ultrarightwingnutjobs choke on your pyrrhic victory.
15 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidUMM ...............................
you have no idea why they decided as they did, just your pious arrogance coming out.
You do know that when the SCOTUS decides a case they write these things called "opinions" where they spell out their reasons for their decisions?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147482
15 Jan 22
@no1marauder saidwhich one has released their opinion?
UMM ...............................
You do know that when the SCOTUS decides a case they write these things called "opinions" where they spell out their reasons for their decisions?
No one has, you are💩weaseling again.
15 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidI gave you the cites above.
which one has released their opinion?
No one has, you are💩weaseling again.
You really don't seem to mind making an utter fool of yourself.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
15 Jan 22
@mott-the-hoople saidAlways showing off your
which one has released their opinion?
No one has, you are💩weaseling again.
true character, Mutt?
15 Jan 22
@no1marauder saidPlease tell us what the decision WAS based on. Not, what it was NOT based on. We are getting close. This is all that I am looking for from you. This is poker night and I am not going to ever get to reading the decision.
I read the decision; it's here if you want to look at it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf
I invite you, Joe or anybody else to find in it any indication that the decision was based on a "right" not to be vaccinated against a deadly, contagious disease.
You could also look at this one where the SCOTUS upheld the vaccine "mandate" for healt ...[text shortened]... id (which is the vast majority of them): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
You could change the issue by saying 'Joe will not read my links', or 'Joe does not know enough to debate here'. But, since I predicted that they would rule as they did, why would I do that. They ruled, you lose, and you are grabbing at straws, and as does Biden, you will throw it all at me.
You can talk about rights till you are blue in the face,,,,,,,,this issue isSCOTUS BLOCK VAX MANDATES.
Maybe yup could start another thread to clear the air. This one is lost to you.
Rights!??!
@averagejoe1 saidIt's not worth responding to your idiotic posts; you were wrong about what the decision would be based on and are still wrong about it. I correctly told you that the SCOTUS might very well strike down the vaccine "mandates" (though they didn't strike down both of them - something you don't seem to grasp) but on grounds that Congress hadn't given OSHA authority.
Please tell us what the decision WAS based on. Not, what it was NOT based on. We are getting close. This is all that I am looking for from you. This is poker night and I am not going to ever get to reading the decision.
You could change the issue by saying 'Joe will not read my links', or 'Joe does not know enough to debate here'. But, since I predicted that t ...[text shortened]...
Maybe yup could start another thread to clear the air. This one is lost to you.
Rights!??!
So you can do a stupid victory lap and claim you've won something, but all you are showing is your profound and persistent ignorance.
EDIT: IF you really don't understand why the SCOTUS made the decision it did, review SH76's post on top of page 4.