I wonder why we are skipping the Supreme Court.
I wonder why it’s not there already actually.
Not that I trust those corrupt people in robes.
I remember there being an outcry when a few Supreme Court Justices made references to rulings by the Hague when talking about US cases. That they shouldn’t be applying decisions made by a UN court to the US.
Besides, wouldn’t the UN be part of The Great Reset? If so, would appealing to the Hague give us a favorable outcome?
There a a whole bunch of laws going down the pike as Rusty pointed out yesterday which will eventually make it to the SC.
But how much can we count on them doing the right thing and follow the Constitution?
Texas Judge Becomes One of the First to Affirm Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy
Monday, June 21, 2021
On June 12, 2021, a Texas federal judge issued one of the first rulings on a challenge to a mandatory vaccination policy. U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of the Southern District of Texas dismissed a lawsuit brought by 116 employees of Houston Methodist Hospital who refused to get vaccinated against COVID-19 following a mandate by the hospital. The policy provided employees with a deadline to receive any of the three available COVID-19 vaccinations. Once the deadline had passed, the hospital suspended the refusing employees for 14 days without pay for failure to meet the deadline.
Ultimately, Judge Hughes sided with the hospital, rejecting the employees’ wrongful termination and coercion claims. First, when reviewing the wrongful termination claim, Judge Hughes noted that plaintiffs’ characterizations of the COVID-19 vaccines as experimental or dangerous were irrelevant. The order focused on the Texas wrongful termination law, which only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker. Thus, without any assertions of an illegal act, the plaintiffs’ wrongful termination claim failed.
Secondly, when considering the coercion argument, Judge Hughes held that requiring an employee to receive a vaccination did not amount to coercion, stating, “Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus . . . [the plaintiffs] can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if [they] refuse, [they] will simply need to work somewhere else.” Judge Hughes likened the refusal to acquire a vaccination to the refusal of an assignment, office change, or earlier start time—all for which an employee may be properly fired. Simply, vaccination policies—like other directives—are part of the bargain an employee enters into when choosing their place of employment.
I don’t agree with this, but this is what we’re up against. The thing is, this vaccine is not like others, is not effective and has caused harm and death. Individuals can’t sue the pharmaceuticals, can they sue their employers?