Posted on 01/07/2022 11:09:59 AM PST by Pollard
On Friday the Supreme Court heard arguments about the constitutionality of President Joe Biden's Wuhan coronavirus vaccine mandates for private companies with more than 100 employees. In September 2021, Biden tasked OSHA with implementing and enforcing the mandates. In the time since, the administration has been sued by multiple parties.
During questioning, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor made a number of false statements about the vaccine's ability to prevent transmission of the virus. While it may protect against death or hospitalization, the vaccine does not prevent transmission.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It would be great to have Supreme Court Justice Rachel Campos-Duffy:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rachel-campos-duffy-biden-malicious-intent-mandates
And any five of these clowns can impose their stupidity on 330 million people.
I couldn’t help myself. :)
After the President voiced his displeasure with the country's vaccination rate in September, 12 the Administration pored over the U.S. Code in search of authority, or a "work-around," 13 ...13 On September 9, 2021, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle's tweet that stated, "OSHA doing this vaxx mandate as an emergency workplace safety rule is the ultimate work-around for the Federal govt to require vaccinations." See, e.g., Pet'rs Burnett Specialists, Choice Staffing, LLC, and Staff Force Inc.'s Reply Brief at 4 (emphasis added).
Generally, administration remarks are noticed but have no power or effect in the logic of the decision. Unless your name is Trump, in which case your tweets are evidence of malfeasance.
In evidence, admissions against interest are taken as lending credibility to the witness. A witness who will admit facts or conclusion that cut against his position is generally taken as a sign of honesty. Your question here is not of that nature, just thought I'd toss out "the thing" about "statement against interest" and the usual context of use, which is admissibility of evidence.
https://casetext.com/analysis/evidence-rule-804b3-statement-against-interest
Ban them from Twitter! HA
Could you address the question:
Can the “admission against evidence” done by the feds/biden be used to push back on these mandates?
That argument WAS used to push back against the OSHA rules. The trial court cited the remarks in its opinion.
That said, no remark by the administration will factor into the court decision.
Sure, she stood on that same stack of bibles and raised the same right she raised when she swore to "Protect and Defend the Constitution Of the United States." That too was a lie..
Any judge who professes false facts in her argument should immediately be removed from her SC position. 300+ million people should not be subjected to ignorant decision making.
Sotomayor made an ass out of herself.
Uh, the 5th blistered Klain and cited his numbnuts retweet in their decision.
"A Sept. 9 retweet from Klain was cited as a key piece of evidence in the blistering ruling issued Friday by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, which paused President Biden’s “staggeringly overbroad” rule forcing COVID-19 vaccines on millions of American workers.In a footnote, the three-judge panel pointed to Klain’s retweet of a post from MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle, who praised Biden’s mandate — enforced by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration — as “the ultimate work-around” to avoid sticky constitutional challenges.
Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt characterized the retweet as a White House “endorsement of the term ‘work-around’” — leading the panel to block the mandate on just those legal grounds.
“The public interest is … served by maintaining our constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions,” Engelhardt wrote."
Maybe Twitter will suspend them...
Can the Wise Latina be sued for legal malpractice and terminal ignorance?
I agree with you. Sotomayor has no business being on the Supreme Court. Any court for that matter.
Food court seems a workable possibility.
Food trough too?
Awwww, c’mon, man...
Why you wanna go on an’ insult decent, upstanding, straight-grained, Main Street American fence posts that way?
LOL.
Shouldn’t have said it.
Cboldt wrote:
“That argument WAS used to push back against the OSHA rules. The trial court cited the remarks in its opinion.
That said, no remark by the administration will factor into the court decision.”
Even hidenbiden saying “it’s up to the states”?
Reverse discrimination is okay, according to liberals. I still remember MLK and his I have a dream speech.
And here we are...
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.