Posted on 07/30/2021 8:10:20 AM PDT by bgill
Dred Scott was precedent, until it wasn’t.
Courts get it wrong all the time, it’s time we stop genuflecting to them.
From a DoJ document:
the agency required DOD to inform potential vaccine
recipients “of the option to accept or refuse administration of [the vaccine].”
Authorization of Emergency Use of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed for
Prevention of Inhalation Anthrax by Individuals at Heightened Risk of
Exposure Due to Attack With Anthrax; Availability, 70 Fed. Reg. 5452,
5455 (Feb. 2, 2005). That EUA continued:
With respect to [the] condition . . . relating to the option to accept or refuse administration of [the vaccine], the [immunization program] will be revised to give personnel the option to refuse vaccination.
Individuals who refuse anthrax vaccination will not be punished. Refusal may not be grounds for any disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Refusal may not be grounds for any adverse personnel action. Nor would either military or civilian personnel be considered non-deployable or processed for separation based on refusal of anthrax vaccination.
There may be no penalty or loss of entitlement for refusing anthrax vaccination.
https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/07/DOJ-Vaccine-Memo.pdf
I was going to say “How does he know?”
Because I will casually lie about this and produce fake ‘passport’ without losing a second of sleep.
From unreliable Wiki, and has it been Shepardized?
That’s good, but you should read the “fine print” to be sure.
Does law follow society, or does society follow law?
The lawyers and politicians fancy they are in control of everything. Masters of the universe.
Not good people, by and large.
“...someone has a disability such that they would have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.”
So they need to test BEFORE jabbing with the crapvac!
Can your employer require male employees to get a vasectomy?
How about giving your kidney to the CEO?
Can your employer search your house and confiscate your guns?
Go Galt?
Fortunately I’m retirement eligible and plan to go in two years anyway. It will take that long for my agency to figure out how they’re going to execute Biden’s guidance, and by that time I think we’ll be well out of this.
What if you refuse to answer?
It seems to me to be the wisest choice
“Plan to go”?
They were rejecting a lot of the religious objections in Houston at that hospital.
And yet many states permit people wearing spaghetti strainers on the heads in the driver’s license photos citing “legitimate” religious beliefs.
21 weeks after 2nd shot of Moderna, the “poison” has been a BIG NOTHING BURGER. I burned 81 candles earlier this year.
Plan to retire. Not “go”, as in death. Just retirement.
From DoJ guidance:
“virtually all such persons continue to have the ‘option’
of refusing the vaccine in the sense that there is no direct legal requirement that they receive it. See Bridges, 2021 WL 2399994, at *2 (noting that an employer’s vaccination policy was not “coercive” because an employee “can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else”)”
https://www.lawandtheworkplace.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2021/07/DOJ-Vaccine-Memo.pdf
The insertion of the phrase “no direct legal requirement” implies that having a direct legal requirement would be coercive.
In my opinion, there are so many indirect legal pressures such as already contracted for mortgage payments, car payments, auto insurance, property tax and health care cost coverage legal continuity requirement that legal coercion effectively exists. I took out a mortgage in 1982 because my marginal tax brackets, state and federal combined, were nearing 40%.
As for the term “freely”, it can take a few weeks to get a new job, which might mean the loss of over $2,000 for a nurse, which is logically incompatible with “freely”.
Why were judges given Article III, Section 1 compensation protection if they could simply hang out a lawyer shingle?
Says who? A hack lawyer? What about HIPAA? Go away.
Everyone might have an adverse reaction to these vaccines according to the VAERs explosion. Hand waving nonsense about how VAERs is not scientifically verified lack any actual data. The publuc Empirical data screams DANGER. The big pharma data says nah, its fine, honest. The long term studies do not exist yet. So at this time anybody might have an adverse reaction as far as we know. Maybe after 3 years everyone will...we don’t know.
Religious beliefs is a charade if one has received other vaccines before or followed any other doctor prescribed procedures before.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.