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

©2026 Poal.co

1.3K

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.
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 1 pt

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.