moral abomination.... I thought the affordable care act was that at the time... forcing people to buy a private product and penalizing them if they didnt. But now the scotus has descended from the 7th to the 6th circle of hell... allowing coerced injections of experimental drugs. Scotus is the most failed institution in America.
excellent summation. It is deeply concerning that they can run rough shod over our rights as humans. I literally feel like I must be living on a different planet for what is being allowed to happen in our world and based on absolutely.100%.nothing. It concerns me gravely for our future and for our poor children who represent a massive casualty of this crap that we have lived with for two years. I feel that we are living in lawless times to be honest and that is deeply concerning. I don't know how these people sleep at night.
While I understand the complaint about the lawyers not bringing up the obvious scientific flaws and dangers of the vaccines, I think in the end, it's better this way. This ruling is based on our Constitutional rights to not be forced to undergo medical procedures--no matter how safe and effective they are. If the ruling was prefaced on the vax being a total failure, then we would not be protected against the next attempt, where they might bother to release a truly deadly disease and an actually effective vax.
I agree it is definitely important to get a ruling on the constitutional argument that the government does not have the power to violate personal autonomy by compelling by legal force (or worse) the administering of a medical intervention. However, the court did not address this. The legal question that was decided upon by the court was the scope of OSHA's statutory authority -- did the statute that created OSHA and defined its powers/authority grant OSHA the authority to promulgate a vaccine mandate in the manner assumed by the factual record presented to the court.
I had two primary objectives in writing this:
1- I thought that it is worthwhile to flesh out in detail the depth and scope of the extraordinary scientific / factual illiteracy of the justices, to illustrate concretely to people that these justices are fools who do not possess any sort of great wisdom or intelligence or even common sense that a normal person would think of as valuable to making decisions in life, and certainly unqualified to be on a court that sets policy for the entire country.
2- More importantly, I wanted to highlight the codification of delusional flat-Earth falsehoods and propaganda in supreme court caselaw. This is significant and therefore disturbing for at least the following reasons:
1→All future court cases involving the vaccines will likely proceed from the factual premises asserted in this dissent. This makes it considerably more difficult to win legal cases in the future.
2→This will be influential - how much I cannot say - in various parts of the culture, where there is still widespread belief in the fraudulent "science" asserted in the dissent.
3→Lying repeatedly and in so egregious a manner, tells these justices that "facts don't matter", whatsoever, and this will lead them in the future to be bolder in future cases to blatantly disregard self-evident facts when it is necessary to rule to usurp or abrogate these same or other basic human rights. Lying so brazenly also influences litigators that they too can similarly propagandize without consequence in their briefs (so long as it is politically on the 'right' side).
4→ Lying like this gives support and momentum to those who support this version of the "science" and more importantly the policies implemented using these "facts" as justification.
5→ This sets a very, very dangerous precedent that government agencies can codify obvious propaganda but will nevertheless be treated by courts as having the weight of expert factual determination.
I would add that the court can rule on the constitutional issue and also point out that the factual record as stipulated in the court filings/findings/etc is anyways inconsistent with the real-life facts/reality.
Ultimately, shameless propaganda from the bench of the highest court in the country is never a good sign, and does not bode well for society generally.
"Troglodyte triumvirate "...🤣👍
Excellent post on a tremendously frustrating topic! Thank you!
Thanks :)
moral abomination.... I thought the affordable care act was that at the time... forcing people to buy a private product and penalizing them if they didnt. But now the scotus has descended from the 7th to the 6th circle of hell... allowing coerced injections of experimental drugs. Scotus is the most failed institution in America.
excellent summation. It is deeply concerning that they can run rough shod over our rights as humans. I literally feel like I must be living on a different planet for what is being allowed to happen in our world and based on absolutely.100%.nothing. It concerns me gravely for our future and for our poor children who represent a massive casualty of this crap that we have lived with for two years. I feel that we are living in lawless times to be honest and that is deeply concerning. I don't know how these people sleep at night.
Like the the title, came up with great acronym, D2 (as in D squared)! Your correct in your assessment Also. 🇺🇸🗣👍
While I understand the complaint about the lawyers not bringing up the obvious scientific flaws and dangers of the vaccines, I think in the end, it's better this way. This ruling is based on our Constitutional rights to not be forced to undergo medical procedures--no matter how safe and effective they are. If the ruling was prefaced on the vax being a total failure, then we would not be protected against the next attempt, where they might bother to release a truly deadly disease and an actually effective vax.
Thanks for the feedback :)
I agree it is definitely important to get a ruling on the constitutional argument that the government does not have the power to violate personal autonomy by compelling by legal force (or worse) the administering of a medical intervention. However, the court did not address this. The legal question that was decided upon by the court was the scope of OSHA's statutory authority -- did the statute that created OSHA and defined its powers/authority grant OSHA the authority to promulgate a vaccine mandate in the manner assumed by the factual record presented to the court.
I had two primary objectives in writing this:
1- I thought that it is worthwhile to flesh out in detail the depth and scope of the extraordinary scientific / factual illiteracy of the justices, to illustrate concretely to people that these justices are fools who do not possess any sort of great wisdom or intelligence or even common sense that a normal person would think of as valuable to making decisions in life, and certainly unqualified to be on a court that sets policy for the entire country.
2- More importantly, I wanted to highlight the codification of delusional flat-Earth falsehoods and propaganda in supreme court caselaw. This is significant and therefore disturbing for at least the following reasons:
1→All future court cases involving the vaccines will likely proceed from the factual premises asserted in this dissent. This makes it considerably more difficult to win legal cases in the future.
2→This will be influential - how much I cannot say - in various parts of the culture, where there is still widespread belief in the fraudulent "science" asserted in the dissent.
3→Lying repeatedly and in so egregious a manner, tells these justices that "facts don't matter", whatsoever, and this will lead them in the future to be bolder in future cases to blatantly disregard self-evident facts when it is necessary to rule to usurp or abrogate these same or other basic human rights. Lying so brazenly also influences litigators that they too can similarly propagandize without consequence in their briefs (so long as it is politically on the 'right' side).
4→ Lying like this gives support and momentum to those who support this version of the "science" and more importantly the policies implemented using these "facts" as justification.
5→ This sets a very, very dangerous precedent that government agencies can codify obvious propaganda but will nevertheless be treated by courts as having the weight of expert factual determination.
I would add that the court can rule on the constitutional issue and also point out that the factual record as stipulated in the court filings/findings/etc is anyways inconsistent with the real-life facts/reality.
Ultimately, shameless propaganda from the bench of the highest court in the country is never a good sign, and does not bode well for society generally.