Biden vaccine mandate blocked!

[Methais]

The Supreme Court did not say the federal government cannot mandate a private citizen be vaccinated, though, they only said that OSHA cannot do so without the plain authorization of Congress. This distinction is mentioned six times in the majority decision and another fourteen(!) in Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, including a reference to an actual current federal law where Congress did in fact mandate a private citizen be vaccinated under certain circumstances.

You've heard a lot about federalism in the lead up to and especially the follow up of this decision. I encourage you to read the actual decision for yourself, and once you see how far you have been led astray, perhaps reconsider all the other things you've heard from those same sources: perhaps this isn't the first time you were so hoodwinked.

[Flap]

Nurse that previously had covid and now has antibodies and is immune

Lol. You're truly dumber than dogshit if you believe this.

[Parkbandit]

Lol. You're truly dumber than dogshit if you believe this.

Yea, Methais! TEH ONLY WAY TO GET IMMUNE IS TO GET THE TRUMP VACCINE AND BOOSTER!

[Bhaalizmo]

Lol. You're truly dumber than dogshit if you believe this.

There's a great deal of evidence here on the GS PC to support this conclusion.

[Methais]

Lol. You're truly dumber than dogshit if you believe this.

Are you really trying to say that the Covid "vaccine" is more effective than natural antibodies? I mean everyone knows you're stupid as fuck, except Bhaalizmo, because he's even more stupid as fuck, but you really gotta draw the line somewhere if you want your "I'm a really really extra stupid cuck!" gimmick to work.

Sometimes less is more.

There's a great deal of evidence here on the GS PC to support the conclusion that I stay butthurt 24/7 and Methais makes me sooooooo mad.

This is correct.

[Gelston]

Are you really trying to say that the Covid "vaccine" is more effective than natural antibodies? I mean everyone knows you're stupid as fuck, except Bhaalizmo, because he's even more stupid as fuck, but you really gotta draw the line somewhere if you want your "I'm a really really extra stupid cuck!" gimmick to work.

Sometimes less is more.



This is correct.

Which would be retarded, since the entire point of a vaccine is to stimulate your immune system. The vaccine itself doesn't actually fight anything.

[Latrinsorm]

That's right.. they said pass a LAW... and that's not happening, because the REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to support their CONSTIUENTS... not act as an authoritarian regime where "MANDATES" are decried.

The MANDATE is illegal... a LAW passed by the peoples REPRESENTATIVES (per the Constitution) is not.

Perhaps this isn't the first time you've been ignorant.

The main reason people don't understand the distinction you're making is because that's not what those words mean - some vaccine mandates are in law, some vaccine mandates are in the executive branch, some are outside of government entirely, such as the many vaccine mandates by companies and schools the Supreme Court has upheld.

Notably, one vaccine mandate from the federal executive branch is the one that says workers at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid must be vaccinated against coronavirus, and this mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court. If they were following your reasoning about what mandate means and what law means, they would have overturned both, but they didn't, so they weren't.

It is easy to project a sweeping philosophical position onto a Supreme Court decision that reaches the same conclusion, but Supreme Court decisions in general and this one in particular are very nuanced and narrow - the specific law, the specific scenario, the specific reasoning all play into why a specific decision is reached. They don't write dozens of pages for fun, you know?

[Shaps]

The main reason people don't understand the distinction you're making is because that's not what those words mean - some vaccine mandates are in law, some vaccine mandates are in the executive branch, some are outside of government entirely, such as the many vaccine mandates by companies and schools the Supreme Court has upheld.

Notably, one vaccine mandate from the federal executive branch is the one that says workers at facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid must be vaccinated against coronavirus, and this mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court. If they were following your reasoning about what mandate means and what law means, they would have overturned both, but they didn't, so they weren't.

It is easy to project a sweeping philosophical position onto a Supreme Court decision that reaches the same conclusion, but Supreme Court decisions in general and this one in particular are very nuanced and narrow - the specific law, the specific scenario, the specific reasoning all play into why a specific decision is reached. They don't write dozens of pages for fun, you know?

You literally said what I said...

If you work for the Federal Government - which is a persons choice - then mandated vaccines are an accepted risk of that job. Exemptions are allowed.

If you control a company - the company can make the determination of their requirements to work there.. and again.. it's a persons choice to work there or not. Exemptions are allowed.

If the President is "MANDATING" that every person "MUST" get a vaccine, regardless of their personal belief/medical condition/status... then that is unconstitutional. The President does not have the power, nor should he, to "MANDATE" what an individual does without an option. That is why "LAWS" are created by our "REPRESENTATIVES", debated, and voted on.

The President should NOT have the power to "MANDATE" that a company or individual require something - when it is in regards to that individuals health - and when it is not enacted by the "REPRESENTATIVES" elected to "REPRESENT" their "CONSTIUENTS".

I get you think a Dictator should just be able to wish things into existence... thankfully that's not our system of government. Though, with jackasses thinking like you, not for much longer.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/prior-cov...180812311.html

"Prior COVID infection more protective than vaccination during Delta surge -U.S. study"

"People who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were better protected against the Delta variant than those who were vaccinated alone, suggesting that natural immunity was a more potent shield than vaccines against that variant, California and New York health officials reported on Wednesday."

ROFL... wonder what Lefties/Facebook/Twitter/etc. are going to mark as "misinformation" now... LOL.

[Shaps]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/1...165553792.html

"WHO says no evidence healthy children, adolescents need COVID-19 boosters"

"There is no evidence at present that healthy children and adolescents need booster doses of COVID-19 vaccine, the World Health Organization's chief scientist Soumya Swaminathan said on Tuesday."

BUT...

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...ions.%E2%80%9D

"We now recommend that all adolescents aged 12-17 years should receive a booster shot 5 months after their primary series. This booster dose will provide optimized protection against COVID-19 and the Omicron variant. I encourage all parents to keep their children up to date with CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.”


So who's lying???? What is the "misinformation"??? Is the US Government LYING??? ***Baaa daaa daaaaaaaaa (plays dramatic music)***

Awaiting Seran's reply! ROFL


What did we learn today (that was previously "misinformation")? Natural immunity is better than the vaccine and boosters for kids are not needed... weird huh? Almost like what those damn "conspiracy theorists" have been saying for 1.5+ years... those fucking crazy people, am I right?