General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsirisblue
(32,828 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 10, 2021, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)
I do not know the reporters name who asked the question, the gist of the question was " overreach and challenge in court"
Pres Biden "Have at it"
(one person clapped briefly)
"Look..."I am so disappointed that particularly some Republican governors have been so cavalier with the health of these kids."
So cavalier with the health of their communities"
---if anyone wants to add more info, it'd be fine
2:40pm, eastern time, full quote from the WaPo article.
I am so disappointed that particularly some Republican governors have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier with the health of their communities, he said after touring a D.C. school. This is what this is. Were playing for real here. This isnt a game. And I dont know of any scientist out there in this field that doesnt think it makes considerable sense to do the six things Ive suggested.
Irish_Dem
(45,619 posts)This is the lead story on the WBUR/NPR show Here & Now first broadcast hour.
The President and his staffers knew this would happen.
Irish_Dem
(45,619 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(143,999 posts)These idiots will lose these lawsuits
Link to tweet
In the lead-up to a 1905 case, a man named Henning Jacobson refused to get vaccinated against smallpox during an outbreak of the disease and after the health board of Cambridge, Mass., ordered residents to get vaccinated. He was fined and charged under Massachusetts law. He pleaded not guilty and argued the mandate violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, ruled that wasnt the case.
In 1922, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a school district that excluded a student who refused vaccinations, in Zucht v. King.
Jamal Greene, an expert on constitutional law at Columbia Law School, points out that Bidens vaccine mandate is less restrictive than the one Massachusetts put in place in 1905, in that U.S. workers who are not vaccinated can instead get tested weekly.
What legal ground do Republican governors have to push back on vaccine mandates?
However, the new Supreme Court majority evidently disfavors and may be primed to limit or even overturn these precedents, according to a post on Lawfare by Lindsay F. Wiley, a professor of law at the American University Washington College of Law, and Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.
Moreover, some coronavirus vaccination laws differ in significant ways from the typical vaccination requirements previously upheld by courts, they write.
littlemissmartypants
(22,417 posts)But the article says "are threatening" which is equal to "old man shaking fist at clouds" which is BS weaksauce. It may not be an empty threat but it's reactively fearful.
That'll show him attitudes that lack a firm foundation in reality are a waste of the President's and therefore, the people's time and in this case are costing lives.
So essentially, they will be fighting for the chance to continue killing people. That is not a noble cause and is definitely illegal in most, if not all, contexts.
Response to irisblue (Original post)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)...with such tiny hands.
Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #8)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,846 posts)Thankfully, he's like a honey badger with that right-wing death cult!
irisblue
(32,828 posts)rownesheck
(2,343 posts)I hope this is how he continues to act for the rest of his presidency! He's fed up with the dumbassery! Go Joe!
bullwinkle428
(20,626 posts)irisblue
(32,828 posts)UTUSN
(70,496 posts)Response to irisblue (Original post)
questionseverything This message was self-deleted by its author.