When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it considers, among other things, whether the applicant “‘is likely to succeed on the merits.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case. See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam); cf. Supreme Court Rule 10. Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits preview in cases that it would be unlikely to take—and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument. In my view, this discretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented."
In other words the mandate in this particular argument resides with the States and is interpreted as not being in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
What implication does this have?
Joe Biden has no authority over private sector businesses in mandating the Gene modifying experimental injection. This is why there is NO MANDATE EO for the private sector. They know. Clever, no?
Will companies mandating the Vaxxx be challenged and sued? You bet they will.
Regarding Maine and the Religious Exemption, this falls under the 1965 Civil Rights Act wherein religious belief is Law of the land in every public accommodation including businesses.
Why Barrett and Kavanaugh joined to form the majority is a bit of a head scratcher. Their opinion is only a paragraph long compared to the dissenting opinion, which is several pages long and very convincing.
This case may have not been presented correctly for it to be rejected and not heard. There needs to be corrections made and by the voluminous dissenting opinion, I believe relief will be eventually granted.
There is a reason why the Court rulings are called 'opinions'. The dissenting view written by Gorsuch is powerful, but is not law, nor is the majority opinion. There is NO LAW for working adults to be vaxxinated.
I believe the court refused to hear the merits of the case because it asked for injunctive relief before a full briefing and arguments could be heard. This perhaps is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
There is NO LAW for working adults to be vaxxinated, period. Since there is no law for working adults to be vaxxinated, there is no need for exemptions.
The questions that need to be answered is:
Should companies have the power to make medical decisions for their employees and to enforce them?
Justice Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh, concurred in the denial of injunctive relief, noting that the injunction pending a cert petition is an extraordinary request that would require the High Court to rule on the merits before it had the opportunity for full briefing and argument.
Kavanaugh voted with her. But consider the following ruling and its meaning:
In other words the mandate in this particular argument resides with the States and is interpreted as not being in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
What implication does this have?
Joe Biden has no authority over private sector businesses in mandating the Gene modifying experimental injection. This is why there is NO MANDATE EO for the private sector. They know. Clever, no?
Will companies mandating the Vaxxx be challenged and sued? You bet they will.
Regarding Maine and the Religious Exemption, this falls under the 1965 Civil Rights Act wherein religious belief is Law of the land in every public accommodation including businesses.
Why Barrett and Kavanaugh joined to form the majority is a bit of a head scratcher. Their opinion is only a paragraph long compared to the dissenting opinion, which is several pages long and very convincing.
This case may have not been presented correctly for it to be rejected and not heard. There needs to be corrections made and by the voluminous dissenting opinion, I believe relief will be eventually granted.
Dissent is not law.
There is a reason why the Court rulings are called 'opinions'. The dissenting view written by Gorsuch is powerful, but is not law, nor is the majority opinion. There is NO LAW for working adults to be vaxxinated.
I believe the court refused to hear the merits of the case because it asked for injunctive relief before a full briefing and arguments could be heard. This perhaps is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
I believe it will be revisited by the court.
Maine law might not allow religious exemptions.
There is NO LAW for working adults to be vaxxinated, period. Since there is no law for working adults to be vaxxinated, there is no need for exemptions.
The questions that need to be answered is:
Should companies have the power to make medical decisions for their employees and to enforce them?
If so, at what point is it limited?
What rights do employees have?
Justice Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh, concurred in the denial of injunctive relief, noting that the injunction pending a cert petition is an extraordinary request that would require the High Court to rule on the merits before it had the opportunity for full briefing and argument.