Skip to comments.
Supreme Court set to issue opinions This Morning on Vaccine Mandates (live thread) [update SCOTUS blocks business mandate at reply 115]
KOMOnews ^
Posted on 01/13/2022 5:33:17 AM PST by janetjanet998
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-126 next last
To: janetjanet998
Not today. We have the R number. No more opinions.
To: janetjanet998
62
posted on
01/13/2022 7:03:06 AM PST
by
EQAndyBuzz
(If you are vaccinated, you cannot get COVID from someone who is not vaccinated. Lighted up Karen!)
To: Karl Spooner
No opinion today on the mandate. SCOTUS seems to be punting and will let the mandate go into effect by default.
63
posted on
01/13/2022 7:03:19 AM PST
by
CFW
To: All
Only one opinion released today.
Nothing more. The R number is posted.
To: CFW
They really have until February before it gets dicey.
I still think we will hear something before the end of January.
To: JoSixChip
“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
I don’t. I think they are going to vote that the mandates are wrong. Doing that will start the ball rolling to get the country back on its feet. And the rats actually need that for November.
66
posted on
01/13/2022 7:05:08 AM PST
by
EQAndyBuzz
(If you are vaccinated, you cannot get COVID from someone who is not vaccinated. Lighted up Karen!)
To: CFW
Surprised they didn’t say “No standing” and walk away.
67
posted on
01/13/2022 7:05:41 AM PST
by
redgolum
(If this is civilization, I will be the barbarian. )
To: Cletus.D.Yokel
My employer (healthcare) has townhall meetings scheduled for tomorrow...
To: All
I know people want something now, but it really is a lot to ask for a complicated decision that will affect agency law to be fully written in less than a week.
It’s pretty clear that they aren’t just going to rule on a stay, they are going to write on the merits.
The opinion will control agency law for some time to come.
Since fines aren’t being implemented until February for lack of testing, the court does have some time.
70
posted on
01/13/2022 7:07:58 AM PST
by
StAnDeliver
(Each of you have at least 1 of these in your 401k: Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck and GSK)
To: TexasGurl24
Looks like something relating to this is what came out today. Per scotusblog...
The Court holds that civil service pensions based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under the Social Security Act.
71
posted on
01/13/2022 7:08:25 AM PST
by
mewzilla
(Those aren't masks. They're muzzles. )
To: janetjanet998
I listened to some of the questions and testimony last night.
I’m not feeling hopeful.
Roberts reliably is suggesting a blanket mandate and asking why the giverment is doing enforcement agency by agency. His comment on the military made me vomit. “[never mind] the military, they just follow orders.”
72
posted on
01/13/2022 7:09:38 AM PST
by
Sequoyah101
(Politicians are only marginally good at one thing, being politicians. Otherwise they are fools.I ha)
To: Wizdum
I hope your dream comes true but I ruefully doubt it will.
73
posted on
01/13/2022 7:11:12 AM PST
by
Sequoyah101
(Politicians are only marginally good at one thing, being politicians. Otherwise they are fools.I ha)
To: janetjanet998
None of the justices are going to be willing to take the heat of the state media by ruling against mandates that “protect our kids and grandma” from “murderous, unvaxxed Trumpists”
The mandates will stand ( my bet )
74
posted on
01/13/2022 7:11:34 AM PST
by
atc23
(The Matriarchal Society we embrace has led to masks and mandates and the cult of "safety")
To: TexasGurl24
Re: 69 - Thank you for injecting a dose of reality in the thread
All pretend lawyers, you can now go back to your normal activities.
75
posted on
01/13/2022 7:11:39 AM PST
by
Fury
To: Sequoyah101
That’s not what Roberts was getting at. Going agency by agency to get around Congress is a problem.
To: TexasGurl24
It would be easy to issue a one sentence stay with a full ruling to follow.
77
posted on
01/13/2022 7:12:44 AM PST
by
Mr Rogers
(We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
To: atc23
None of the justices are going to be willing to take the heat of the state media by ruling against mandates that “protect our kids and grandma” from “murderous, unvaxxed Trumpists”
Yep, that's basically it. The narrative is the reality.
78
posted on
01/13/2022 7:14:22 AM PST
by
Deo volente
("When we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God's creation." Pres. Trump)
To: TexasGurl24
I generally agree that SCOTUS wants to take its time in weighty matters, though it's worth noting Bush v Gore's opinion came out on Dec 12, the day after oral arguments.
The other thing, is Roberts generally strives for consensus. He Martin-Quinn scores are in the middle of the pack. He *may* be using this extra time, to push for a narrow ruling to widen the yea/nay gap.
79
posted on
01/13/2022 7:16:31 AM PST
by
DoodleBob
(Gravity's waiting period is about 9.8 m/s^2)
To: Wizdum
The Supreme Court is about politics, not law. If they’re going to uphold universal requirements for purchasing “healthcare” they’re certainly going to uphold mandates for “saving the lives of millions of children, the people who play by the rules and protecting grandma from being murdered by selfish, murderous Trumpists”
A ruling against mandates would be suicide in the court of state media and other agitprop outlets
80
posted on
01/13/2022 7:17:11 AM PST
by
atc23
(The Matriarchal Society we embrace has led to masks and mandates and the cult of "safety")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 121-126 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson