TREASON Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett Join Leftist Justices in Allowing Maine’s Vaccine Mandate

Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett Join Leftist Justices in Allowing Maine’s Vaccine Mandate

If you thought the “conservative” Supreme Court would save us from the draconian, unconstitutional vaccine mandates popping up across the country, think again. For the third time, the highest court in the land sided with medical tyranny, suppressing the healthcare rights of American citizens and propelling us closer to The Great Reset.

Only Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch voted in favor of blocking Maine’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. It marked the third time the court declined to protect the rights of citizens from being forced to choose between their jobs and the jabs.

According to ABC News:

The high court has previously turned away students at Indiana University and teachers in New York City who objected to being vaccinated. Both the university and city allow people to seek religious exemptions.

Maine’s requirement was put in place by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills. A federal judge in Maine declined to stop the mandate, concluding that the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed. The Oct. 13 decision prompted a flurry of appeals that landed, for a second time, in the Supreme Court.
The Liberty Counsel, which filed the lawsuit, claimed to be representing more than 2,000 health care workers who don’t want to be forced to be vaccinated.

Click to expand...

As we’ve said multiple times, it will be up to the people to fight this. Lawmakers in DC are doing nothing. Some Republican governors are acting, but there’s no telling how long their resolve will last. It must be the people who oppose this by calling their bluff. For some, that means leaving our jobs to find employment that does not abide by the government’s demands. For others, it means major lifestyle changes, including moving to states where freedom is still allowed.

We must continue to communicate our wishes, spread the truth, and denounce the mandates with everything we have. If the three branches of government are against us, then we must return to our roots as a government of the people.

US Supreme Court Rejects Maine Health Care Workers’ Challenge to Vaccine Mandate in 6-3 Vote – Amy Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh Join Liberal Justices

The US Supreme Court on Friday rejected a challenge from a group of Maine health care workers seeking to block a vaccine mandate based on religious grounds.

Recall, Democrat Governor Janet Mills in August announced that healthcare workers in Maine must be fully vaccinated by October 29.

The Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of approximately 2,000 healthcare workers in August.

Last Tuesday the Supreme Court declined to hear an emergency appeal attempting to stop a Covid vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in Maine.

Far-left Justice Stephen Breyer, who oversees complaints for the First Circuit, rejected the emergency appeal last week in the first time the highest court of the land has weighed in on a statewide Covid vaccine mandate.

Breyer denied the emergency request “without prejudice” which left the door open for Liberty Counsel to file another application for injunctive relief and Breyer referred it to the entire court.

On Friday, the highest court of the land in a 6-3 vote rejected the health care workers’ request.

Three conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have ruled in favor of the Christian group seeking relief from the Covid vaccine mandate.

“Healthcare workers who have served on the front line of a pandemic for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered,” Gorsuch wrote in a dissenting opinion. “All for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Their plight is worthy of our attention. I would grant relief.”

Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, both Trump appointees, wrote an opinion concurring with the liberals in the denial of injunctive relief.

View: https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1454203032770596869

DJ strikes again.

Gotta love those zany pro-life, pro-liberty Catholics on the bench.

And this is why we must Trust God and not men

Nothing should depend on a religious exemption. It's unlawful to force someone to participate in medical experiments. Without information, there can be no informed consent. So the injection is unlawful regardless whether the subject has agreed to it.

Sure glad DJT picked those great justices.

He only hires the best people

sometimes I feel like all of this is scripted

Border Collie Dad said:

Sure glad DJT picked those great justices.

He only hires the best people

Click to expand...

Apparently nobody is who they seem or claim to be. Deceit rules the world.

Border Collie Dad said:

Sure glad DJT picked those great justices.

He only hires the best people

Click to expand...

He was one hell of an actor.

Sicario said:

Apparently nobody is who they seem or claim to be. Deceit rules the world.

Click to expand...

I'm not quite ready to say DJT deceived us.
But he may be a lot more naive and gullible than he should have been.

Faroe said:

He was one hell of an actor.

Click to expand...

He had the prefect opportunity to play the part of the hero and he chose to walk away. I'm all for living to fight another day, so long as that day comes before it's too late to fight.

It's a bit much to hang this on Trump.

Sicario said:

He had the prefect opportunity to play the part of the hero and he chose to walk away. I'm all for living to fight another day, so long as that day comes before it's too late to fight.

Click to expand...

Already a legend in his own mind; no point in taking on actual risk.

Is there actually a mandate yet? Law? Anything?

last I heard the USDA was going to write something.

Border Collie Dad said:

I'm not quite ready to say DJT deceived us.
But he may be a lot more naive and gullible than he should have been.

Click to expand...

If he is truly that gullible and naive, he should have never been in the WH. I wonder why he supports people who are never Trumpers? Why did he throw his support to Chuck Grassley? Why would he endorse the candidate that Liz Cheney has chosen to replace her? The list goes on and on.

A man does not get to be a billionaire by being naive.

I posted this on the main Covid thread, will add it here too.

~~~~~~~


One thing to note, this was not a decision on the merits, it was a decision to deny an emergency injunction. Barrett and Kavanaugh voted no on that point alone, not on the main case. My guess is the liberal judges would vote no on the merits of the case as well if it ever got to the Supreme Court. We have the 3 conservative judges who dissented and said they would've granted the injunction, so they'd probably vote in favor of plaintiffs if the case reaches the Supreme Court. That leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett. They could swing back in the right direction if this is heard on the merits so let's hope the plaintiffs continue to pursue this.


(fair use applies)

Court turns away religious challenge to Maine’s vaccine mandate for health care workers
By James Romoser
on Oct 29, 2021 at 9:23 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed a vaccine mandate for Maine health care workers to remain in effect, rejecting an emergency request from workers who argued that they should receive religious exemptions.

The brief order was a rare instance of the court deferring to a state COVID-19 policy in the face of religious-rights claims, and the decision split the court’s conservatives. The three most conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — argued in dissent that Maine’s mandate unconstitutionally discriminates against health care workers with religious objections to the coronavirus vaccines. Two other conservatives — Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — agreed with the decision not to intervene, saying the court’s emergency docket is not the right place to resolve the merits of the workers’ claims.

On Aug. 12, Maine health officials added COVID-19 to a longstanding list of diseases against which health care workers must be vaccinated. The mandate exempts people for whom a vaccine would be “medically inadvisable,” but it does not allow exemptions for people with religious objections to a vaccine. Officials pledged to begin enforcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on Oct. 29.

A small group of health care workers sued, arguing that they are entitled to religious exemptions under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and federal employment law. Two lower courts ruled against them, prompting the workers to seek emergency relief at the Supreme Court last week. They asked the justices to issue an order preventing the state from enforcing the mandate without religious exemptions.

The court’s single-sentence order declining to intervene did not explain the majority’s reasoning. But Barrett wrote a short concurrence, joined by Kavanaugh, pointing out that the emergency posture of the case meant that the court had not received full briefing or heard oral argument. Those limitations, Barrett wrote, weigh against granting the “extraordinary relief” that the workers were requesting.

Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alio, wrote an eight-page dissent in which he argued that Maine’s mandate has forced the health care workers to choose between following their religious convictions or losing their jobs. Refusing to grant religious exemptions, he wrote, “borders on the irrational.”

The court has turned away other emergency challenges to COVID vaccine mandates recently. In August, Barrett rejected a challenge to Indiana University’s mandate, and earlier this month, Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a challenge to New York City’s mandate for public-school employees. But the Maine case was the first vaccine challenge involving claims of religious liberty.

In other COVID contexts, particularly social-distancing policies, the court has repeatedly held that state and local governments must provide exemptions for worshippers if the policies allow for non-religious exemptions.


~~~~~

LINK TO PDF OF DECISION:

Border Collie Dad said:

Sure glad DJT picked those great justices.

He only hires the best people

Click to expand...

THIS is the issue I've had with Trump all the long. He loves Team America but can't hire or pick to save his life.

TKO said:

THIS is the issue I've had with Trump all the long. He loves Team America but can't hire or pick to save his life.

Click to expand...

That's my number 1 issue with him as well and why I would not vote for him in a 2024 primary. (obviously would vote for him if he's the candidate).

HD

Which candidate is emerging for the repubs? Cruze…crickets not even poked his head up in this fight! Rubio nada. I only see Abbot and Desantis (spelling nazi’s suck eggs)! By now anyone in our corner should be a star or our darling and we have nothing. Maybe Rand but I don’t trust him yet! I’d like to see more of Flynn but very little. Whose out there beating the brains out of liberal talking points?

President Trump was an extremely successful businessman in the rarefied realm of high stakes business. This obviously did not translate well into understanding DC and Deep State politics. I don't believe Trump was (or is) a fraud; rather, I think he was out of his depth in the minefield of high stakes politics. The rules are...different, as are the connections and power within what has become known as the Intelligence Community.

Time and again Trump was played by past masters of the game and he didn't realize it until it was too late. He claimed that he wanted to drain The Swamp. In the end, The Swamp drained him.

Best
Doc

Doc1 said:

President Trump was an extremely successful businessman in the rarefied realm of high stakes business. This obviously did not translate well into understanding DC and Deep State politics. I don't believe Trump was (or is) a fraud; rather, I think he was out of his depth in the minefield of high stakes politics. The rules are...different, as are the connections and power within what has become known as the Intelligence Community.

Time and again Trump was played by past masters of the game and he didn't realize it until it was too late. He claimed that he wanted to drain The Swamp. In the end, The Swamp drained him.

Best
Doc

Click to expand...

Doc, I really would like to believe that, but he has been involved with politicians for years, and he is anything but naive. Yes, the Swamp drained him. We need a shark.

That leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett. They could swing back in the right direction if this is heard on the merits

Click to expand...

Heliobas Disciple, to date, neither, in their young careers, have shown anything to warrant a great deal of optimism

Heliobas Disciple said:

I posted this on the main Covid thread, will add it here too.

~~~~~~~


One thing to note, this was not a decision on the merits, it was a decision to deny an emergency injunction. Barrett and Kavanaugh voted no on that point alone, not on the main case. My guess is the liberal judges would vote no on the merits of the case as well if it ever got to the Supreme Court. We have the 3 conservative judges who dissented and said they would've granted the injunction, so they'd probably vote in favor of plaintiffs if the case reaches the Supreme Court. That leaves Kavanaugh and Barrett. They could swing back in the right direction if this is heard on the merits so let's hope the plaintiffs continue to pursue this.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong about this but it seems to me that they are allowing the mandate to stand while waiting for the challenge to be advanced through the courts
The problem that I have with this approach is when the case is ruled upon if the decision is in favor of the workers and they took the shot to keep their jobs it cannot be undone

Murt said:

sometimes I feel like all of this is scripted

Click to expand...

It is !!!

Everything in the political world is scripted ! Just like the WWF

Murt said:

sometimes I feel like all of this is scripted

Click to expand...

Ding, Ding, Ding!

Winnah Winnah Chicken Dinnah!

I thought barret would be good, but I was convinced kavanough would be bad. Djt might as well nominated the second coming of john roberts with that guy. Gorsuch is "meh" at best and unfortunately barret is a pretender....
One thing djt is consistent at is hiring rinos and people that aren't usually on our side. He basically screwed himself us over with his supreme court picks

Sicario said:

Apparently nobody is who they seem or claim to be. Deceit rules the world.

Click to expand...

I tend to believe your comment. DJT was probably the best president since Regan. His biggest issue was being a loner in a leftist forest surrounded by sly wolves. He went to Washington with the best of intentions and worked very hard to turn things around, but the knives in his back made him look like a porcupine. He's still very popular but thanks to voter fraud will never be in the White House again, nor will any other honest person.

I was not a fan of Kavanaugh or Barrett in the first place as there was much out there suggesting they were leftists in disguise prior to their confirmations. Another consideration is most of the supremes are likely scared of the leftists themselves in terms of safety for their lives or the court being packed.

The Maine voters are to blame for this BS...if you want states to be sovereign in such matters, without Federal interference, this is what will happen in states that elect Liberal/fascist governments.

At least until the right case hits the Supreme Court docket and allows them to make a wider ruling.

bw said:

It's a bit much to hang this on Trump.

Click to expand...

I agree
Even here trump derangement syndrome is at play

LYKURGOS said:

Which candidate is emerging for the repubs? Cruze…crickets not even poked his head up in this fight! Rubio nada. I only see Abbot and Desantis (spelling nazi’s suck eggs)! By now anyone in our corner should be a star or our darling and we have nothing. Maybe Rand but I don’t trust him yet! I’d like to see more of Flynn but very little. Whose out there beating the brains out of liberal talking points?

Click to expand...

Honest to goodness I can't think of anyone decent. Maybe Abbott. Desantis seems to have set a standard for how other conservative governors should be. I'd vote for either of them. I'd vote for Trump if he makes it through. I'm so sick of a two party system, though. Americans are idiots when it comes to this kind of thing. They can only see "this or that". However, there's a reason for it. $$$$$$$$ Trump can be an influence. No doubt about it. However, given he can't pick people, I doubt I'd even go with whatever candidate he endorsed in the end...if that is all he did. Maybe Trump would be more DC savvy this time around and would have learned some politics. (ie one of the first things Demoncrats did was start whacking the conservatives in the military academies. Trump can learn lessons!)

Maybe, just maybe, this is 1860 all over again. I'm dreaming, I know.

This exact condition was known to Jefferson who warned:
1. The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.
2. There is no justification for taking away individuals' freedom in the guise of public safety.
which leads to:
3. When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.
which leads to:
4. When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty.
5. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
6. A true patriot will defend his country from its government.

Mandates by the exec branch's elite puppet master(s), laws by the same puppet master(s) elite that control congress or court decisions by those elite, require enforcement to have any real bearing. This is where the true non-libtard commie states should step up and say NO. Sure the elite will withhold fed funds and pull more BS, but the elite will then be faced with enforcing the BS which leads to step 5 and 6 above. If/when step 6 EVER becomes necessary, it's all over. Fort Sumpters could/would burn all over the FUSA. The elite better see the step 5 awakening as their final warning. Even if individual states do nothing, it still comes down to the individual good men/patriots.

Submit as proof of the above post being NO BS:
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution vs the elite

Sicario said:

Recall, Democrat Governor Janet Mills in August announced that healthcare workers in Maine must be fully vaccinated by October 29.

Click to expand...

This a decision "left to experts."

I am reasonably sure that the SCOTUS ruled as it did because "They (Healthcare Industry) are the experts."

Prerequisites for working ARE allowed among employers. Could be PPE, could be membership in a Union. Could be a certain sex, race, or visual acuity. Could be vaccine. It all is determined by the employer.

It would seem in the case of Maine, someone "connected" to the Statehouse made a case for mandated vaccines among the healthcare industry - and Gov. Mills made this mandate her own.

This should have been contested NOT on the basis of Employer Prerequisite, but rather State Mandate.

And whether State Mandate CAN overrule one's religious belief. (We've already established that employer mandate CAN overrule religious exception - in cases of "non-accomodation.") When May an Employer Reject a Religious Accommodation Request?

Note the Amish (another thread) are not subject to state mandate in MANY areas of their life. But one might expect the Amish don't do much work among the "English" simply because of employer mandates which are allowed to stand.

While many may put this decision to "Leftist Court" - and blame Trump - it could be rather the court is leaving it to "experts" - which is free enterprise at its most free. Trump as an employer may even agree.

Sorry to point this out.

Dobbin

Murt said:

I may be wrong about this but it seems to me that they are allowing the mandate to stand while waiting for the challenge to be advanced through the courts
The problem that I have with this approach is when the case is ruled upon if the decision is in favor of the workers and they took the shot to keep their jobs it cannot be undone

Click to expand...

Exactly. I see it as a stall tactic to get as many vaccinated before they have to finally admit it's not legal to mandate it. But until that ruling comes, they can pressure as many as they can to get the vaxx. To TPTB, it's all about getting as many people vaccinated as they can, at whatever cost, using whatever manipulation, noble lie or fake threat they can use. /or not. Ultimately the Supreme Court could rule it's legal to mandate and then we're in a whole new territory. As long as they don't rule conclusively we can still have hope that justice will prevail.

HD

One other thing - if you have the chance read the dissent by Gorsuch, I posted the pdf of the opinion in my first post on this thread. What he points out is so OBVIOUS it's a wonder ANY justice would have not voted for the injunction. Legally this makes no sense. Kavanaugh and Barrett hid behind procedure, maybe because the case is so important that it needs a full view by the Court and an entire opinion written up to set precedent for future pandemics/vaccines. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they may want to 'do it right' for posterity and are willing to wait. .... or they're stalling so more people get vaxxed in the meantime. Not sure which. I like to at least consider the "benefit of the doubt" possibility though, it makes the world a warmer place and keeps me less cynical.

HD

Article III
Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Click to expand...

As strict Constitutionalists their hands are tied. It's not really an issue for the US Supreme Court as defined in Article III, it's an issue for the Maine Supreme Court. Not saying it's morally right, but it's constitutionally correct. We can't complain about activist judges on the left and then complain that the Constitutionalists aren't being activists.

I know, I know what about the interstate commerce bull shift? Let's not lower ourselves to that their level.

The rule of law is dead and buried anyway, just look at the ruling on the eviction moratorium which was summarily ignored by the executive branch.

I just don't like seeing people who claimed to be Constitutionalists criticized for following Article III and the 10th ammendment.

YMMV

Capt. Eddie said:

As strict Constitutionalists their hands are tied. It's not really an issue for the US Supreme Court as defined in Article III, it's an issue for the Maine Supreme Court. Not saying it's morally right, but it's constitutionally correct. We can't complain about activist judges on the left and then complain that the Constitutionalists aren't being activists.

I know, I know what about the interstate commerce bull shift? Let's not lower ourselves to that their level.

The rule of law is dead and buried anyway, just look at the ruling on the eviction moratorium which was summarily ignored by the executive branch.

I just don't like seeing people who claimed to be Constitutionalists criticized for following Article III and the 10th ammendment.

YMMV

Click to expand...

They were arguing a first amendment issue. That's for a federal court, they were in the right place. Read Gorsuch's dissent. It's wonderfully written and spells out a great approach for lawyers who do finally bring this before the entire court as a case and not as an emergency request for injunction in the meantime.

Dissent starts on page 2. It's a pdf so can't cut and paste.

HD

Heliobas Disciple said:

......stalling so more people get vaxxed in the meantime......

Click to expand...

Bottom line.

If there are ANY innocents remaining in the halls of government......

Heliobas Disciple said:

They were arguing a first amendment issue. That's for a federal court, they were in the right place. Read Gorsuch's dissent. It's wonderfully written and spells out a great approach for lawyers who do finally bring this before the entire court as a case and not as an emergency request for injunction in the meantime.

Dissent starts on page 2. It's a pdf so can't cut and paste.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a90_6j37.pdf

HD

Click to expand...

I stand corrected HD, I should have read the dissent before posting.

I sometimes need to remind myself... " It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and leave no doubt."

Would be interesting to know how many of the Supremes have taken a COVID vaccination, how many times, and which one?

It could be argued that any Supremes (or other judges in the judicial system) who took the jab could be suspected of having a pro-jab bias, and should therefore recuse themselves.


intothegoodnight