Posted on 01/07/2022 2:54:28 PM PST by Hostage
USSR comes to USA.
—
Years ago perhaps that might be true foe something back then.
Now its Met Emperor Xi. The US becomes Mao’s China.
The “WIDE LATINO” is DUMB! SUPREMELY DUMB! Scalia is rolling over in his grave!
Along with all the other alphabet agencies that torment our lives.
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent them hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." - Thomas Jefferson
The Wide Latina is dumb as punch.
Yes. She was testifying, without the ability of being criss examined. And she lied, to boot.
Thomas must be shaking his head.
From the little that I read, I would agree with you. The plaintiffs’ attorneys under-performed, and did not use the best arguments. Frankly, I don’t think they care because they did not act like it. Let’s hope their briefs are better than their oral arguments and at least one of the three (Cave-in-naugh, ACB, and snake Roberts) are persuaded.
Because it is well-known that party-loyalist Kagan, leftist Souter and the wise Latina are going to do whatever the demonkkkraps’ and major media’s position is, attorney needs to be very pointed and short in responding. Nothing attorney says will convince them. And Attorney’s oral argument time is limited. When the wise latina started spouting false facts, all a PREPARED attorney would have to say is “With all due respect Mdm Justice, that isn’t in the record.” and then move on. It never ceases to amaze me how many attorneys do not know their case.
You are very wise indeed. I wish you were arguing the case today.
Xiden isn’t doing away with anything.
Despite Xiden’s position to the contrary, they are applying the statute into an area Congress’ did not put into the statute. And even if Congress did put it in the statute, then the question would be whether it is constitutional. If you really want to see what the demonkkkraps think about the issue, if the roles were reversed and Trump were trying to do this ... the demonkkkraps would be against it as unconstitutional. The anti-demonkkkraps** would continue to be against it.
(** - I am moving away from calling people on the political right “conservatives”, because the way things have been run for over 5 decades, and maybe more, I don’t want to conserve any of it.)
and why will illegals NEVER be expected to get the jab
Keep in mind that oral arguments are a total waste of time. CLARENCE Thomas outlined this in his autobiography when he explained why he rarely ever asks questions during these oral arguments. Basically, he said U.S. Supreme Court cases have so many legal briefs entered that there’s no reason to ask any questions at all. Every argument has been laid out and litigated endlessly before the oral arguments are held.
I was answering a poster who said, "The next President should do away with OSHA", pointing out that a President who serves under Article II cannot do any such thing.
Now, full disclosure - it's my opinion that there is a 50/50 chance that our current situation cannot be turned around under the terms of the 1788 Constitution, as amended, and that a President (or whatever) will come to power not bound by those rules.
But an elected President governing under Article II and subject to removal by Congress cannot eliminate OSHA, nor any of the other swarms of officers sent hither to harass us and eat out our substance.
Alito is one of the good guys, in my opinion.
Vaccine mandates: Supreme Court has upheld state and localhttps://www.cnn.com › 2021/12/29 › politics › supreme-c...
Dec 29, 2021 — A Supreme Court that has declined to block several types of vaccine mandates is now considering whether to allow the Biden administration to ...
Jacobson v. Massachusetts :: 197 US 11 (1905) - Justia US ...https://supreme.justia.com › cases › federal
A state may enact a compulsory vaccination law, since the legislature has the discretion to decide whether vaccination is the best way to prevent smallpox ...
Jacobson v. Massachusetts - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Jacobson_v._Massach...
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce ...
Kind of my point. States may well have the power to impose vaccine mandates, but not the Federal government.
As I recall, the Jacobson case involved a fine of $5 imposed when he refused a small pox vaccination. SCOTUS did not say that he had to take the vaccine, but rather the town, acting under a state law, could fine him.
The Founders never intended for the Federal government (President or Congress) to have this kind of power over American citizens. Take a quick look at the enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8) and see if you can find anything remotely looking like the power to impose medical procedures on people.
It’s also worth noting that small pox was quite contagious and had a fairly high mortality rate and that even in 1905 the small pox vaccine was well known to prevent infection and subsequent contagion. Not quite the case for the China virus vaccines.
This is not to say that a creative liberal judge won’t find something hiding in a ‘penumbra’ somewhere, but it really just isn’t in there.
I used to think the Supremes were wise; they are not; only well connected.
“If the Covid pandemic is truly an existential threat, then why do they leave our Sothern border wide open?”
Not only that, IF this virus is as dangerous as these “experts” claim, then why aren’t these disposable masks treated as a biohazard and disposed as such?
I will repeat what my court expert, Zen Master, told me last night. (So far, he has yet to be wrong).
“Both mandates will go down, probably 6-3. I can’t vouch for Roberts, so they might be 5-4. I’m done with Roberts.”
It was as if there were no legal arguments presented and it was all rehash of what newscasters think.
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.