Posted on 01/07/2022 6:16:44 AM PST by TexasGurl24
If this is the guy who is arguing against the mandate, then we’re doomed.
If it’s a solid 5 against the mandate expect Roberts to switch to the majority so that he can write the opinion narrowly.
Obese women seem to be very over the top about Covid. Perhaps because they know they are a trailer and Covid is the tornado.
It most certainly is about individual liberty. Doing it in a twisted way, making someone else mandate it, still effects your individual liberty.
All the ‘young’ folks have been conditioned by ‘government’ education to believe the government can do anything to you it wants to, and the non-elected governmental bodies too.
This is fundamental individual liberty. Your body and right to work and move freely.
Where the hell do the what ifs end?
A ridiculous line of premise.
I don’t agree. We are not doomed. Keep your faith high and continue to PRAY
That was the reasoning behind mandatory drug tests as a condition of employment.
Soon it will be mandatory birth control as a condition of employment
Breyer’s question about whether OSHA can regulate any risk didn’t go well for him.
Research has proven Obese people are likely to die or get very sick from Covid.
OSHA needs to force weight lost programs on Obese Americans in workplaces with above 100 employees.
If Kagan truly thinks that getting vaccinated is the best way to stop the spread of COVID, I would suggest that she look at Google and compare the case rate in January of last year versus this year. She’s either willfully lying, or a complete fool.
they let this stand, then yes, they can impose ANYTHING.
We are CATTLE.
My lucky rock doesn't work unless you buyy a lucky rock too.
Lunacy.
This is a simple matter of constitutionality. Period. And the mandates are unconstitutional.
SCOTUS is a fact-free and logic-free zone. Outcome first, then develop a line of reasoning using whatever facts and leaps of reasoning get to that outcome. Use lots of words and platitudes when composing the opinion.
Kagan’s long argument about “low risk doesn’t mean no risk” was just criticized by council Fisher(?) as being “irrational”. It’s rare to have an attorney in this room bite back like that!
SICKENING. I am so mad about this.
They are not arguing if it is CONSTITUTIONAL!
They are arguing if they like the idea of people taking the drug or not.
Attorney is named Flowers, not Fisher.
Kagan, Soto and Breyer don’t give a dam* about people when they approve wholesale of literally KILLING infants without batting an eye. A DISGRACE
That is actual the fact of the matter. We are viewed, by the government, as chattle property. All this debate is about how to best care for the herd. Individual liberty does not factor in at all.
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.