5th circuit was absolutely right and SCOTUS will agree. OSHA's "one mandate fits all" covid mandate made no more sense than requiring hard hats for all companies with more than 100 employees.Well of course it was the 5th Circuit. We'll see what the SCOTUS says.
Vaccine mandates have been found cons utional for more than 100 years and this isn't even a mandate since you can just test weekly. It might be overturned but only because your side loves them some judicial activism.
Same ty fifth circuit that agreed with our ridiculous state abortion law, no surprise they're pro COVID too.
Last edited by baseline bum; 11-13-2021 at 02:47 PM.
I think these states have it very uphill, and are likely to lose (which is what this court was trying to determine).
Not only there's ample legal precedent for mandates like this going back a century ago or more, this same SCOTUS already reviewed and ruled as legal similar mandates at the state level.
Can you point me to your similar analysis when the previous administration was injecting trillions into the economy? Frankly, Brandon has a long way to go to come remotely close to the level of economic destruction from the last two gop administrations, tbh.
So basically CC is been exposed here by not knowing the basics.
I don't pretend to know how the SCOTUS will rule, but precedent, both historical and on the current SCOTUS is not on their side.
We will see when and if SCOTUS hears the case. Meanwhile Justices a lot smarter than you have ruled it uncons utional.
Same justices that said Texas' abortion law was great.
They didnt say it was great. They basically said a state was within its cons utional right to do it. I personally dont agree with the law either but don't necessarily say the ruling was wrong.
These smart guys fully endorsed the law that says a state can just setup a bounty system to take away peoples' cons utional rights. It's a state's cons utional right to ignore the cons ution, what the kind of perverted logic is this that you support just because it was Republican judges?
This right there says a lot about them. It's just unfortunate that they've become a court that basically gives carte blanche to all sorts of cuckoo legal theories.
I understand the rationale: it's the only way to pierce through legal precedent and hope to reach the SCOTUS. However, at some point you lose credibility.
I told you I disagree with the law, but cons utionally powers that aren't specifically given to the federal government are by definition reserved for the states. This is apparently one of those gray areas. This issue should be clarified within the next few months with other cases headed to SCOTUS.
I never understood the "fixed income" caveat. What separates "fixed income" folks from working folks is working folks can have zero income next week. Otherwise, salaried folks are on fixed incomes as well. Only they have to work.
I think you're lying, you'll keep voting for the assholes who passed SB8.
There's nothing gray about it. If we wanted States or individuals to be able to effectively nullify any cons utional right, we would have done so a long time ago, and we wouldn't need things like Cons utional amendments, the framework where you do those type of things.
The only inference you can make from that ruling is that the court doesn't consider the right of women to terminate pregnancy early a Cons utionally-protected right, despite that it is.
You can easily make the argument that this vaccination mandate might go one way or the other (though, based on precedent alone, it's unlikely States would prevail), but the abortion case is pretty egregious.
I actually vote for a democrat state representative where I am registered to vote because she is doing a good job. I am currently repulsed by all the current Republicans running for governor. I am really hoping Strauss runs to give centrists an option.
I am pro choice all the way but you are grossly mistaken. If not, which cons utional amendment legalized abortion?
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.
This is why Roe has always been the real target, and these laws are used as a vehicle to try to attack that.
Heartbeat, viability and "beginning of life" and the protected rights of the fetus are the GRAY area that has never been resolved. We can have opinions on both sides but there is no clear legal line.
43 states have laws restricting abortions after specific time frames so there is no unlimited right under the 14th amendment.
This is at the center of what was Roe. None of those thing dispel the notion that abortion is indeed a cons utionally protected right.
The problem is that it clashes with another right, which is the State's right to protect the health of it's citizens, and no one right takes priority or precedence over another.
The solution was simply Solomonic: You get to exercise your right for a given time period, the State gets to exercise their right afterwards. That way, neither side is completely denied of their rights.
How long that time is or should be is certainly the contention, but as a matter of cons utional law, that time can never be zero, otherwise it's indeed a an implicit denial of a cons utional right.
The problem with Texas law is that it does not set a minimum time, which is prima facie uncons utional. The fact that it's not the State enforcing it, it's a legal technicality. Under the same legal trap, States can simply deny 1A or 2A rights as well, or any other cons utional right, which is why there's no chance this will stand.
It effectively becomes a vehicle to nullify cons utional rights.
That is the difference right there.
Everything both of us has said is true. Honestly, I hope the stupid 6 week law is overturned. I just hope we finally get a definitive ruling to end this bull . If it was my decision there would be a hard and fast line at the end of the second trimester, period. If you can't get it done in six months you are literally killing a viable baby.
I dont understand the obsession with some americans saving ing babies. 99% of the chance a failed abortion baby will be either a criminal, loser definitely a drag to society.
Id say let nigas abort as many babies as possible. Its on them. Better than producing a genetically flawed loser that will take up national resources.
Wow. Channeling Sanger.
Not sure what this means but an unprepared mother will usually raise a human.
Might as well give her the chance to erase the mistake and try again.
This is regardless if the mother is black white purple or green. A young unprepared mother is possibly the saddest thing in life.
Let her do whatever she wants with her body.
Cheers
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
