Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

575

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

No good legal reason to uphold the mandates. I am marking down anybody saying otherwise as a blackpiller or shiller.

[–] • 0 pt

There hasn’t been a legal reason for anything the government or private companies have done.

Roberts is iffy, so you need the other five and we don’t have enough info on 3 of them to know how they’ll side. Thomas and Alito are against mandates but we’ll have to see how the other “conservative” justices break.

[–] • 0 pt

They’ve slapped Biden repeatedly so far. We shall see.

[–] • 0 pt

I hope so to.

This is what someone posted in the live feed, I asked who he’s talking about but haven’t gotten an answer yet.

Looks like it's heading to a 6-3 decision. Bitch, bitch and fag refuse to consider that the jabbed can still transmit covid. The court seems to believe being jabbed makes you safe, but the unjabbed, and only the unjabbed, pose a risk to the other unjabbed.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

1 fucking hour for one of the most important topics of the last 2 years. They are going to rule in favor of mandates.

[–] • 2 pts

I'll be fucking shocked if they don't rule in favor of the administration.

[–] • 1 pt

They’ll probably uphold the mandates, the only thing that gives me a sliver of hope is how they came down on the CDC for overreaching on the rent moratorium. Then the CDC did it again and was immediately stopped.

[–] • 0 pt

This is different. That was a public health department regulating commerce. This is a labor department regulating public health. Totally different.

[–] • 0 pt

It seems exactly the same just reversed.

Public health regulating commerce.

Labor/commerce regulating health.

[–] • 1 pt

I am sure they will think of something smart to justify the depopulation shot.