Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk > COVID19
Supreme Court rejects vaccine challenge >

Supreme Court rejects vaccine challenge

Notices
COVID19 Pandemic Information and Reports

Supreme Court rejects vaccine challenge

Old 12-13-2021, 02:07 PM
  #1  
Always Working
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
Default Supreme Court rejects vaccine challenge

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...te-2021-12-13/
Tfork is offline  
Old 12-13-2021, 10:56 PM
  #2  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Default

Means nothing

This is the new York state run hospitals.
Drum is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 06:17 AM
  #3  
Always Working
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
Default

Originally Posted by Drum View Post
Means nothing

This is the new York state run hospitals.
It's established precedent but I figured that would be your take. I'd say it way more meaningful that an injunctive stay.
Tfork is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 02:48 PM
  #4  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Default

Originally Posted by Tfork View Post
It's established precedent but I figured that would be your take. I'd say it way more meaningful that an injunctive stay.
No, it didn't

That's what Rachel is telling you.

Tell us then, about what just happened at Amtrak?

The NY ruling was narrow. The exemptions where written about 7 months ago - poorly.

The fact that the SCOTUS invoked the Pope is humorous in their ruling. Pope is not God. Any good exemption letter for those of the Catholic faith would point that out.

Have you read the exemption letters proffered? No. You didn't. It was no surprise to ANYONE that the SCOTUS would rule this way on this very much narrow case.

If what you say is true (and its not BTW) then ALL religious exemptions are moot. That is purely not the case. Exemptions are being approved daily across this country after that ruling. Again, this case has NO BEARING save for the narrow scope of the lawsuit filed against the State of New York Healthcare.

Go back to your Xbox and MSNBC and keep your eye out for when Roe gets nuked.
Drum is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 03:14 PM
  #5  
Always Working
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
Default

Originally Posted by Drum View Post
No, it didn't

That's what Rachel is telling you.

Tell us then, about what just happened at Amtrak?

The NY ruling was narrow. The exemptions where written about 7 months ago - poorly.

The fact that the SCOTUS invoked the Pope is humorous in their ruling. Pope is not God. Any good exemption letter for those of the Catholic faith would point that out.

Have you read the exemption letters proffered? No. You didn't. It was no surprise to ANYONE that the SCOTUS would rule this way on this very much narrow case.

If what you say is true (and its not BTW) then ALL religious exemptions are moot. That is purely not the case. Exemptions are being approved daily across this country after that ruling. Again, this case has NO BEARING save for the narrow scope of the lawsuit filed against the State of New York Healthcare.

Go back to your Xbox and MSNBC and keep your eye out for when Roe gets nuked.
Ah, so you think they can rule one way in a case then another in a separate case. Good luck. Go back to your newsmax and tin foil hat.
Tfork is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 03:49 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DeltaboundRedux's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Position: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
Posts: 2,102
Default

Originally Posted by Drum View Post
No, it didn't

That's what Rachel is telling you.

Tell us then, about what just happened at Amtrak?

The NY ruling was narrow. The exemptions where written about 7 months ago - poorly.

The fact that the SCOTUS invoked the Pope is humorous in their ruling. Pope is not God. Any good exemption letter for those of the Catholic faith would point that out.

Have you read the exemption letters proffered? No. You didn't. It was no surprise to ANYONE that the SCOTUS would rule this way on this very much narrow case.

If what you say is true (and its not BTW) then ALL religious exemptions are moot. That is purely not the case. Exemptions are being approved daily across this country after that ruling. Again, this case has NO BEARING save for the narrow scope of the lawsuit filed against the State of New York Healthcare.

Go back to your Xbox and MSNBC and keep your eye out for when Roe gets nuked.
Not to go all Joe McCarthy, but 6 of the justices are professed Catholics.

Interesting that they'd cite their own personal religious leader in a secular case and institution, particularly in a country that is nominally majority Protestant.

(I'm probably going to get sent to the penalty box for that one. Oops. Facts. ).
DeltaboundRedux is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 04:10 PM
  #7  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Default

Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux View Post
Not to go all Joe McCarthy, but 6 of the justices are professed Catholics.

Interesting that they'd cite their own personal religious leader in a secular case and institution, particularly in a country that is nominally majority Protestant.

(I'm probably going to get sent to the penalty box for that one. Oops. Facts. ).
Me too, but I had to throw it out there as it has bearing on what they ruled.

Funny how that goes isn't it.

I'll be seeing you in time out.
Drum is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 04:18 PM
  #8  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Default

Originally Posted by Tfork View Post
Ah, so you think they can rule one way in a case then another in a separate case. Good luck. Go back to your newsmax and tin foil hat.
what are you talking about?

Explain yourself. Is your reading comprehension that juvenile?

The ruling is not established precedent as you claim (I saw the same statement in the crawl on MSNBC BTW, so your comment is stolen and not original - at least give them citation credit)

Religious exemptions are being approved, right now, across this country, after the ruling. If the case you claim in NY is indeed precedent, they would be moot.

Again, you're pitching way out of your league here.
Drum is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 04:54 PM
  #9  
Always Working
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
Default

Originally Posted by Drum View Post
what are you talking about?

Explain yourself. Is your reading comprehension that juvenile?

The ruling is not established precedent as you claim (I saw the same statement in the crawl on MSNBC BTW, so your comment is stolen and not original - at least give them citation credit)

Religious exemptions are being approved, right now, across this country, after the ruling. If the case you claim in NY is indeed precedent, they would be moot.

Again, you're pitching way out of your league here.
As usual, you have a very tainted view. What I'm saying is, if another case comes across their docket, they'd be bound by this ruling, not by law, but by precedent. So, Florida says the Hospitals can't mandate the vax by the same way NY did, what will they say? Now, some entity would need to sue. I said nothing about religious exemptions. The supreme court ruled long ago that sincerely held religious beliefs were a valid exemption. Precedent.
Tfork is offline  
Old 12-14-2021, 05:37 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Default

Originally Posted by Tfork View Post
As usual, you have a very tainted view. What I'm saying is, if another case comes across their docket, they'd be bound by this ruling, not by law, but by precedent. So, Florida says the Hospitals can't mandate the vax by the same way NY did, what will they say? Now, some entity would need to sue. I said nothing about religious exemptions. The supreme court ruled long ago that sincerely held religious beliefs were a valid exemption. Precedent.
No, I don't


Religious exemptions are still being accepted and processed right now.

Had this been precedent, that would have halted - immediately across the nation. Yet it continues. So no. Not a landmark case as you claim (from pilfering the crawl off MSNBC).
Drum is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MX727
Hangar Talk
22
09-11-2010 11:21 AM
Sandhawk
Major
159
06-30-2009 11:44 AM
loungelzrd
Aviation Law
2
12-31-2008 12:14 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices