Of course the other alternative is that you don't know, or won't say, what you mean.
We both know you haven't finished the question: "What would you do (about ________?)
But I'll take your question as a free pass: I propose that Autocrat Joe, who claimed to graduate in the top half of his law school class when he was actually 76th out of 85, be questioned by someone with the skills of Trey Gowdy regarding the interplay of the presidential oath, the Constitutional separation of powers, and Biden's theory of ruling by edict.
I appreciate the selection that you have posted here, but it is a plaintiff's claim, not a ruling, right? I am supposing that your point here is that you agree with the plaintiff's charges. Or is this a "decision"? Can you post a link to the "decision," if it is in fact a ruling from a judge? I can't find any reference online to a status beyond the suit being filed....
A ruling.
Finding that the Government Defendants do not have the authority to implement the CMS Mandate, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 2] and IMMEDIATELY ENJOINS and RESTRAINS the Government Defendants from implementing the CMS Mandate.
--edit--
For TSherbs - note page 28 and the court's comments on Police Power/Tenth Amendment, from an impasse in a different thread.
In the federal system, the federal government has limited powers. The States and the people retain the remainder.38 The States have broad authority to enact legislation for the public good (“police power”), but the federal government has no such authority, and can only exercise the powers granted to it, including the power to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers. If the federal government would radically readjust the balance of state and national authority, those charged with the duty of legislating must be reasonably explicit about it. The Supreme Court will not be quick to assume Congress has meant to effect a significant change into the sensitive state and federal relations. Congress does not normally intrude upon the police power of States. Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 857-58 (2014).
Last edited by dneal; December 2nd, 2021 at 05:18 PM.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Thanks dneal,
This is the decision issuing a nationwide injunction against the mandate(except for the states already included in an earlier injunction).
TSherbs (December 2nd, 2021)
In its decision regarding the DHS' appeal of an order requiring adherence to the "Remain in Mexico" policy the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals became blunt in its assessment of the government's arguments, calling them "as unlawful as it is illogical," guilty of unclean hands (a legal term of art), "arbitrary and capricious," "independently unlawful," and concludes with:
"The Government’s position in this case has far-reaching implications
for the separation of powers and the rule of law. The Government says it has
unreviewable and unilateral discretion to create and to eliminate entire
components of the federal bureaucracy that affect countless people, tax
dollars, and sovereign States. The Government also says it has unreviewable
and unilateral discretion to ignore statutory limits imposed by Congress and
to remake entire titles of the United States Code to suit the preferences of
the executive branch. And the Government says it can do all of this by typing
up a new “memo” and posting it on the internet. If the Government were
correct, it would supplant the rule of law with the rule of say-so. We hold the
Government is wrong."
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-10806-CV1.pdf
at page 117.
Sense a theme here?
dneal (December 15th, 2021)
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction against the OSHA vaccine mandate.
I saw that. I guess the SC is next.
Yes, the applications have been filed.
Texas Federal District Court enjoins mask mandate for Headstart Program:
"Because the Court concludes that there is a substantial likelihood that the mandates do not fit within the Head Start Act’s authorizing text, that HHS failed to follow the APA in promulgating the mandates, and that the mandates are arbitrary and capricious, the Court preliminarily enjoins their enforcement in Texas."
Case 5:21-cv-00300-H Document 42 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID 24553Case 5:21-cv-00300-H Document 42 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID 24553State of Texas et al v. Becerra, et alDoc. 42Dockets.Justia.com
Though requested, the Court limited the injunction to Texas, and did not extend it to the entire US.
TSherbs (January 3rd, 2022)
Schools here vaccinate the students against influenza and wear masks. I hope they offer COVID-19 vaccines as well because it would be a convenience for all concerned. I think childhood schedule vaccines are required to attend classes.
Grandson ran a fever over the weekend and tested negative for COVID-19.
As someone once said, "If you want to be a part of the discussion, can you make at least one attempt toward the present discussion?"
dneal (January 3rd, 2022)
Chuck, it's still relevant. It just hasn't occurred to you the other ways it applies.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
I've thought about this ruling. If I could do anything to prevent children from getting sick, I would. If the law says I can't, then change the law. Choosing to do knowing for any reason is not reasonable.
Maybe a place to start is with not mandating a vaccination that has high rates of myocarditis and pericarditis, for children that have almost no risk from what you’re vaccinating them against. Given that they have almost no risk from Covid, perhaps one might also think about their education and mental well being and the consequences of the nonsense school and mask policies.
"A truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like being challenged."
Bookmarks