In first federal ruling on vaccine mandates, judge sides with Houston hospital, dismissing claims from staff resisters

Posted by $ nickursis 1 month, 2 weeks ago to Government
26 comments | Share | Flag

So, a Clinton appointed judge decides the individual has no right to say no to an unapproved drug being forced into their body? Hmmmm....This will be fun.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-judge-sides-houston-hospitals-020713664.html?.tsrc=fp_deeplink


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Abaco 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Interesting precedent. For the past 15 years I was pretty sure vaccines would be what splits this nation. Let's see how that works out now. The problem only really arose when they started to try to mandate vaccines for adults...just as I knew it would.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Misanthropic-Shrugger 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      These people will be rich, when this is over. Especially if someone has naturally acquired immunity and refused the vax. There is NO evidence that naturally acquired immunity is insufficient.... as it has been for all of time since the cave man days. People have gone nuts.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Well the propaganda machine clearly will make sure sheeple have no clue what is going on.
    Some tidbits here:
    Threats: "If the federal government did want to pursue mandating vaccines, the more realistic scenario is to tie it to federal funding or tax individuals who refuse to vaccinate. The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, signaling to Wilker the tax may be permissible."
    Carrots: ""In either case, that does not mean an individual could be vaccinated against their will if they were willing to suffer the consequences of not doing so," Wilker said."
    More threats: "It's possible Congress could have the power to mandate a vaccine under the commerce clause since the virus travels across state borders, constitutional law experts told Newsweek. The question is whether that power actually includes the power to require vaccines and Steven Wilker, a partner at the law firm Tonkon Torp, told Newsweek that it would likely be a "reach.""
    Generic Carrot and Stick: "State and federal governments can't force people to receive a new coronavirus vaccine against their will, experts said, but lawmakers may be able to create a mandate that imposes consequences for not being vaccinated."
    And the ultimate threat:
    "The federal government could also leave the decision up to states. In the 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a citizen argued forced smallpox inoculations infringed on his personal liberty. The Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge Board of Health's authority to require the vaccination under the 10th Amendment that grants state police powers.

    As it's still a "perfectly good law," Laurence Tribe, a Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School told Newsweek. The answer to whether states could mandate vaccinations, he said, was a "clear yes.""



    https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 25n56il4 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Methodist Hospital (which has bunches of money) better be sure they have a 'Dick Deguerin' type lawyer! Researching the NLRB and the fact these vaccines haven't been cleared by the CDC and people have been dying? Oh this could be the biggest class action we've ever seen. Are they excusing people who have had the virus and prove to be 'negative' every time they are tested? This action could be misconstrued as 'intentional harm'. Doesn't the Hypocratic Oath say, 'First, do no harm?'
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Lets look at some data:
    Judge: Lynn Nettleton Hughes (born September 9, 1941) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. His federal judicial service has been hallmarked by being one of the most reversed judges in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His repeated misconduct was noted by the Fifth Circuit on May 6, 2021, in an appellate opinion that sua sponte reassigned the case in addition to reversing Judge Hughes. See United States v. Khan, F.3d (5th Cir. 2021).

    Well Wikipedia seems to think this dude has some issues.

    The case also seems to be a real test between 2 HUGE concepts: Can you be forced to poison yourself because the state says so?
    Can the state make false claims (there is ample reason to doubt a boatload of stuff about Covid, the vaccines, and all the events surrounding it, including whether a lot of "deaths" were from other causes, and then conveniently labeled as so), and use that to justify poisoning you?
    Can your employer fire you, if for no reason, other than you refuse to be poisoned by them with a unapproved medical device?
    Just what are the rules around unapproved medical devices? Seems there is a lot of variation between whether you can be required to get something labeled a "vaccine" that is not approved, has never been shown clinically safe, has more deaths and cases of serious side effects than any other vaccine in history.

    The Judge is one of the most turned over judges in the court system, so this will no doubt go up the food chain, I am betting there will be a stay order issued so Methodist cannot take action until the SCOTUS hearing happens, because this will go to them, I have no doubt.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Can any American government do anything if 50 million people refuse to obey?
      I would love to see the treasonous SCOTUS rule against the people and the People tell the SCOTUS to pound sand.
      The SCOTUS has been anti-freedom for a long time. They deserve to be ignored along with every other federal order.
      We, the People, have rarely seen justice from the SCOTUS courts in the past 30 years.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Yes, and that is starting to happen, slowly, across the country. They have ruled through imposing laws and "rules" (that are not law) and SCOTUS either ignores or approves it. Mask mandates is the best example, this will be next. The problem is that the deep state (and they own the govt machine for now) exists to force the sheeple into the pen for slaughter by any coercion they need. The threats of taxes and penalties is one example. The loss of your job is another. They do not care one bit for the individual, just that you obey.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    I'm surprised that a federal judge would make a ruling this libertarian. I don't especially like the outcome, but I expect that the marketplace will make them change it unless the hospital industry is too overregulated to allow the market to work. Which it may be.

    What I'm more afraid of is that the fake president will use the military to start injecting people by force. That will directly start a war.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Unconstitutional and completely corrupt judgement.
    Impeachment and disbarment for the judge who clearly doesn't support the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      Again, see my below, we will see an onslaught of propaganda next couple weeks like the Newsweek article, which was just a jumble of carrots and sticks, but ended with the ultimate "You will be assimilated" threat. Claims it IS Constitutional law, saying SCOTUS already ruled on such a case. However, minor detail left out that makes it all moot, is vaccine is NOT approved, just has an EUA, and in all 4 EUAs the FDA states "There is no known vaccine for COVID19". If they are saying it does not exist, how can it be mandated? They are trying to force a vaccination on people that does not exist.

      I think a better legal argument is that, you can't make me get a "vaccine" that the FDA clearly says in each EUA, does not exist, so just what is it you are trying to stick in me?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Its a working condition set by the employer. If the employee doesnt want to abide by it, he is free to find another job
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      So, if your employer decides you need to use a known carcinogen on your job, its take it or leave it? You just tossed 100 years of employment law in the toilet. Same for ppe, workplace safety etc. By your logic, an employer can do anything to their employees, and your only choice is to quit?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        yes. what if the government dictates how it should be? if that any better. At least with the employer, you can quit. If the government mandates, you go to jail if you dont do it
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by hattrup 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        Your "logic" ignores that the employee has a choice. The employer cannot just "do anything". The employee must consent.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          Thats true, however, when using tactics like government mandates, and "regulations" (none of which have the force of law) employers then have not only economic weapons, but supposed legal and moral weapons. The employee most definitely has the right to say no, and consent can be forced, not willing. Using those weapons, an employer pretty much can do anything. Now, we go back to OSHA and all their happy crap, the tactic may be to sue employers for OSHA violations, because they are making an unsafe workplace by forcing employees to take unapproved, unauthorized crap. Remember, the EUA specifically says the patient must make informed consent, without that, they do not get the jab, yet employers now are forcing informed consent that really is an informed objection.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by hattrup 1 month, 2 weeks ago
            I do not think consent can be forced. Employers have always had "legal and moral weapons" - an employee still needs to consent to be the victim. I had an employer use the "economic and moral weapons" of a paycheck and "industry downturn" to cut my hours. I left for a new job.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
              Again, a lot of people, especially with many years at an employer, get into a groove where their security is a high priority. I currently make 188K/yr as an Engineering Technician, if given a choice between my job or the jab, I would have a hard time deciding, but I am sure I would tell them to bite me. I could sell my farm for 950K and owe 610, so I could survive, but it would be hard. How does a younger guy with children make that decision? That is how you force consent, when one alternative is worse than the other. It all depends on low your employer is willing to stoop to curry favor with a failed state.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ mwolff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
    Does OSHA not have a say in this as I believe their statement was that the company becomes liable for all consequences if it mandates this "vaccine" and their employee suffers from the jab.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Russpilot 1 month, 2 weeks ago
      I would love for that to be the case. Then anyone who advised or forced someone to get the shot against their will could get sued down to nothing by anyone harmed by it. That would damn sure slow down some of these companies big and small that are telling people it "would be a good idea" to get the shot, or mandating it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ mwolff 1 month, 2 weeks ago
        It appears that OSHA has changed its stance by changing the previous statement from "If an employer requires its employees to be vaccinated, adverse reactions to the vaccines are considered “work-related” by OSHA. Employers who require COVID-19 vaccines must notify OSHA within 24 hours of an employee’s inpatient hospitalization (or within eight hours of an employee’s death) resulting from an adverse reaction." to most recent entry "DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward." so it seems that they are now also following the "company" dictates.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 1 month, 2 weeks ago
          So, to work around worker protections, they will create an unsafe workplace by ignoring the law. That matches most demonrat philosophy, and I am pretty sure ranks as a crime against humanity. Maybe an adventurous lawyer could file suit at the hauge for such a crime by everyone at OSHA.....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo