Supreme Court rejects vaccine challenge
#1
Always Working
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
#2
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
This is the new York state run hospitals.
#4
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
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.
#5
Always Working
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
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.
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.
#6
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.
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.
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. ).
#7
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
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. ).
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. ).
Funny how that goes isn't it.
I'll be seeing you in time out.
#8
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
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.
#9
Always Working
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 265
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.
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.
#10
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
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.
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).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post