The fact that the temporary injunction was granted means the court believes that the plaintiffs (states) will likely succeed on the merits of the case, so that may encourage others Courts of Appeal to rule the same. For example, there is a case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal from FL, AL, and SC (maybe others).
IANAL, just a keen observer of this kind of thing for decades, and I believe this case, and others, WILL go to SCOTUS soon.
I believe this case, and others, WILL go to SCOTUS soon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe you are correct but I do not expect this court to uphold freedom.
My guess is they will duck it if they can.
So, the feds and some state governments are attacking the public from multiple directions. There is the EO, and this case is on OSHA insisting on vax for workplace safety.
What’s next, CDC going to do wiring code and machine guarding?
It’s easy to knock down OSHA regulating vax. Hardly knocks down mandate, it just knocks down a deliberately stupid choice of agency. If OSHA can;t do this, maybe Congress can legislate it directly, or have an agency that actually has public health in its portfolio issue the regulation.
The government can attack from 20 directions at the same time. Just wait until the states get into the game. This .... show is just getting started.
It will go to SCOTUS, but we may not like the result. I wish I did not have to write that, but I have lost a lot of faith in the “Roberts court” even when the issue appears very clear and obvious.
These stays and decisions at the circuit level should propel this immediately to SCOTUS. I have read the arguments on both sides that appear highly focused on legal nuance and past precedent.
However, I am most disappointed that the court(s) will not entertain the most obvious issue.... the vaccines we are mandating DO NOT provide lasting protection against the current variant(s). I used to believe they did, but show me the science that supports any efficacy.
They say it over and over yet all of us know vaccinated people who have gotten sick and/or even died. I think many of us know people who had adverse reactions to the vaccine.
Based on statistics it is obvious that the media maligned therapeutics have a much better benefit with extremely low risk of any adverse reaction. I would like to see that presented to court. If I have a less than 1% chance of death or serious injury from the virus AND there are treatments that have a better than 50% chance of success where is the scientific justification for me to get a vaccine that DOES NOT stop me from spreading the virus to other persons (their justification - not mine)?
That should be the argument because the vaccines have not succeeded in their stated purpose given that we will now need a continual flow of boosters for new variants or as “immunity” wanes. I would rather rely on the horse dewormer, quercetin, and my supplements and know that I would qualify for monoclonals if needed over a shot that is ineffective and potentially risky.
That is my .02. This whole thing has become a theater of the absurd mixed with politics and corruption.
Wait a minute. How come when Trump was president, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was able to stop Trump's agenda nationwide? Their jurisdiction was Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast.