Each ruling and election moves us one step closer to either civil war or total subjugation. There is no third option.
Each ruling and election moves us one step closer to either civil war or total subjugation. There is no third option.
direct link (x.com)
They said that as long as authorities say a mandate is for “public health,” then the courts shouldn’t question them.
…
This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a state official could have believed a shot would help individual members of the public—will stand.
[direct link](https://x.com/theHFDF/status/2056509036103958977)
> They said that as long as authorities say a mandate is for “public health,”
> then the courts shouldn’t question them.
>
> …
>
> This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter
> whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a
> state official could have believed a shot would help individual members of
> the public—will stand.
So the "Health Freedom Defense Fund" is responsible for taking this to the SCOTUS and losing? They are as much to blame as the evil government. I bet if you look into them they are jews.
Edit: Who runs the "Health Freedom Defense Fund"? Leslie Manookian. Ex-Goldman banker. Look at her schnaz. Yep.
So the "Health Freedom Defense Fund" is responsible for taking this to the SCOTUS and losing? They are as much to blame as the evil government. I bet if you look into them they are jews.
Edit: Who runs the "Health Freedom Defense Fund"? Leslie Manookian. Ex-Goldman banker. Look at her schnaz. Yep.
Huh, sandbagged by a name stealer. Hold on while I put on my surprised face.
Huh, sandbagged by a name stealer. Hold on while I put on my surprised face.
This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a state official
could have believedsaid a shot would help individual members of the public—will stand.
I don't think belief has anything to do with it.
>This means that the Ninth Circuit’s egregious ruling—that it doesn’t matter whether a shot stops transmission or infection, all that matters is that a state official ~~could have believed~~ **said** a shot would help individual members of the public—will stand.
I don't think belief has anything to do with it.
Good point. I don’t think most of the officials making or enforcing those ordered cared either way. They’re just narcissists who love authority and have to punish anyone who defies them.
Good point. I don’t think most of the officials making or enforcing those ordered cared either way. They’re just narcissists who love authority and have to punish anyone who defies them.
So the magic words are "public health" then they can't stop anything?
So the magic words are "public health" then they can't stop anything?
Yup. And anyone the court considers an “authority” can force you to get medicated for “public health”, even if it wouldn’t prevent you from catching or spreading anything.
Yup. And anyone the court considers an “authority” can force you to get medicated for “public health”, even if it wouldn’t prevent you from catching or spreading anything.
So, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest if a pharmaceutical employee just say that it's a "public health" mandate, when they force you to take an AIDS cocktail for which only they own the patent for?
So, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest if a pharmaceutical employee just say that it's a "public health" mandate, when they force you to take an AIDS cocktail for which only they own the patent for?
In the case that was ruled on it was someone in state public health who made the mandate, so I doubt a pharmaceutical company could count, but the pharmaceutical company could just make the state health authority set the mandate for them.
In the case that was ruled on it was someone in state public health who made the mandate, so I doubt a pharmaceutical company could count, but the pharmaceutical company could just make the state health authority set the mandate for them.
Good news, we can now hear that COVID shots were actually bad now that forced vaccination is on the menu.
Good news, we can now hear that COVID shots were actually bad now that forced vaccination is on the menu.
It could have a 1 in 3 chance of instant liquification and if some bozo said there was 5% chance of it helping the other 2 they'd still mandate it. They don't give a shit about the people.
It could have a 1 in 3 chance of instant liquification and if some bozo said there was 5% chance of it helping the other 2 they'd still mandate it. They don't give a shit about the people.
I can't tell where this case HEALTH FREEDOM DEF. FUND, INC . V. CARVALHO was denied cert. So if the tweet is accurate - that SCOTUS denied the appeal - then this isn't over. The 9th Circus ruling will stand, but another lawsuit can be filed in any other circuit. If it results in a split ruling, then SCOTUS has to give cert in order to resolve the conflicting Circuit Court rulings.
That said, this lawsuit was against the LA School District mandating the jab for their employees. Not as strong a case, in my opinion, as suing the government for mandates on private citizens.
I can't tell where this case HEALTH FREEDOM DEF. FUND, INC . V. CARVALHO was denied cert. So if the tweet is accurate - that SCOTUS denied the appeal - then this isn't over. The 9th Circus ruling will stand, but another lawsuit can be filed in any other circuit. If it results in a split ruling, then SCOTUS has to give cert in order to resolve the conflicting Circuit Court rulings.
That said, this lawsuit was against the LA School District mandating the jab for their employees. Not as strong a case, in my opinion, as suing the government for mandates on private citizens.
That’s right. SCOTUS upheld a ruling that only applies in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court. Other circuits can still make different rulings. The 9th Circuit is the largest circuit in the USA though, and this ruling will influence the other circuits.
I don’t care if it’s a mandate on everyone, on all students and staff at an institution, or only on government employees. Forcing people to undergo any kind of medical procedure is horrible.
That’s right. SCOTUS upheld a ruling that only applies in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court. Other circuits can still make different rulings. The 9th Circuit is the largest circuit in the USA though, and this ruling will influence the other circuits.
I don’t care if it’s a mandate on everyone, on all students and staff at an institution, or only on government employees. Forcing people to undergo any kind of medical procedure is horrible.
I agree the mandate is wrong, period, full stop. My point was, courts have ruled that employers do have rights, and for this lawsuit, the government was functioning as an employer. That weakens the case in my lay opinion.
I agree the mandate is wrong, period, full stop. My point was, courts have ruled that employers do have rights, and for this lawsuit, the government was functioning as an employer. That weakens the case in my lay opinion.