When most people from non-left were praising ACB and Trump’s chance to improve the SCOTUS, Barnes played a different tune. And pointed out that it may be a major blunder. Mostly based on where the nomination came from.
By now it seems too obvious that the talk about originalism was nothing bat a facade. And ACB is just another Roberts clone.
Edit: this is not on the original idea but a good rant on the consequences of allowing this road to walk on:
She already participated in several important votes siding with the evil. And no sided with mandating experimental treatments too.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-barrett-denies-appeal-from-indiana-university-students-fighting-covid-19-vaccine-mandate
Well, another notch on the “Trump be damned” page. Can anyone recall even a SINGLE good person he appointed to any position of importance?
7 replies on “Barnes was right again :(”
There is a difference between following what you find as good or evil and following the law. So you wanted her to stay an order that interferes with the sovereign rights of that school and the way it runs its system?
She is free to attend another school. I don’t want or like mask mandates but I have two feet and can walk to away.
The law, such as it is, says no one can be forced to take an experimental drug. Even when the fascists running the FDA quickly ram through their approval of this novel gene therapy, such ersatz approval fails to meet their own standards of long-term testing. So, they can call it whatever they like, without long-term data, it will still be experimental. And we the people are the lab rats.
Have to disagree, Michael. Forcing anyone to inject unproven gene therapy that carries greater health risks to the college student-age cohort than the disease it professes to treat looks to me to be the embodiment of evil.
As to your point about attending another school, I agree she should get as far away from such a fascist enterprise as possible. Paying them tuition only feeds the beast. Too bad we all can’t do the same when it comes to our post-Constitutional Supreme Court.
https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring-vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/
The point is she is NOT being forced, she may walk away. It is like a drivers license, you are not required to get one, but if you don;t then other means of getting around may be less advantageous.
So the argument is that private business can post whatever rules, and customers are free to not go there?
I’d violently agree with application of such setup. Now please explain how that cuts only one way. The other business that wanted to STAY OPEN, or forbid masks or whatever, got shut downs and fined and boarded. That nice argument about customers may just chose to not go to that gym or shop was never around.
Very convenient application of the “law’.
The one issue I have with that argument especially in this case of Universities is it is not so simple as to just walk away. You take courses specific to your specific school and program and spend a lot of time and money doing so and to go anywhere else will put you behind because of all the school and program specific stuff you did and missed at the new school. It also completely ignores the fact that so many of these schools implemented these mandates after the deadlines for committing to schools and transfer deadlines and all of that so they wouldn’t be able to switch schools for an entire year because of how last minute all these mandates were put in place. Students committed to these schools thinking they wouldn’t be lab forced to take experimental medicines and it really is almost a breach of contract on the part of the school. It isn’t what the student signed up for when they chose that school. Also a lot of these schools mandating it are state schools (government run). Your argument has a little more validity for private universities but for public universities they absolutely cannot force experimental medicine on you (or any), both legally and constitutionally. But as mentioned federal law that created this EUA process for experimental drugs specifically states it cannot be mandated or have any kind of coercion to take it.
All of your points are valid, period. But the law is that the courts can not tell states how to run their school systems and that is what she ruled.
I think every student at that school should file suit against the school. Probably get enough for a class action suit, I personally would sue for damages against the school and not to change the rule. But, as much as we all hate what that school is doing, ACB merely rules on the law.
One of the common problems that I see people, both conservative and liberal, is that if a court rulling goes against what they want or believe they rail against the court, but what happens most of the time is that the judge is forced to rule the way he or she or they do because-it-is-the-law.
The feds have taken over much of the school\ systems rules by giving them money. If you do this, we will give you money. That is how they have controlled the schools, not by making rules.
The other reason the courts decide wrong is just pure cowerdace as demonstraited by Chief Justice Roberts.
IIRC by the very same laws shops were banned to have “whites only” signs, And a lot of other things that involve discrimination by health status, or even demanding people to expose their medical history.
Also there was a worldwide agreement back in Nurnberg about experimenting on people against their will. The said school goes against all that. And has ACBs support in the matter too.
I strongly disagree her interpretation of the applying law.