[Cboldt]

-- NO evidence that the mandate serves a compelling state interest. This is a key argument to make against the poisonous, life-destroying shot that is not even a vaccine. --

Actually, "compelling state interest" is a totally flexible consideration. It is whatever the judge wants it to be. This draw, got a judge to decide this way. Get a different judge and the outcome is reversed.

"Public health" is always a compelling state interest, so a judge that views the health of one as the same as public health will come to the opposite side on this case.

Law is all outcome driven. The rhetoric (like "compelling state interest") masks the fact that law is really based on whim.

[RipSawyer]

“Law is all outcome driven. The rhetoric (like “compelling state interest”) masks the fact that law is really based on whim.”

I hereby nominate you for the recently resurrected “You done went and said a mouthful” award.

[Missouri gal]

We have to keep making the case that the poison shot is dangerous and not protective against the virus. Also, the original virus is gone, with the variants fading into background noise, so the fear is fading. Sotomayor threw back the New York case against mandates for teachers, but this will eventually get before the full Supremes. Also needs federal legislation. Yes, that will be next Congress, not in Pelosi’s time. Meanwhile, the Nuremburg Code and a multitude of state laws will hinder mandates.