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.
Uopdate your assumptions. She'd need a decade+ of "outrageous" SCOTUS decisions before it would even be brought up. And then by whom, the bought off Senate? Look what they allowed from Ginsburg for nearly 3 decades. No one will impeach shit.
This is not about 'vaxxines', that is actually a genetic modification experimental injection, but safeguarding religious beliefs, which fall under the 1965 Civil Rights Act, Title VII. It doesn't matter what the case is. Religious beliefs are to be secured and safeguarded.
If pork was mandated to Muslims and Jews, would those who don't like eating pork and cave continue fighting for those whose religious beliefs forbids them?
It's irrelevant and not divisive nor discriminatory.
The Civil Rights Act provides for religious beliefs to be safeguarded and secured in all public accommodations including businesses. A religious exemption is not a request, but is a LAW of land for over 55 years.
You are allowed to have your opinion--even though it is wrong😊. Seriously though, I disagree with exemptions dividing people. Firstly, no one should know whether or not some one else is or isn't vaccinated. Secondly, exemptions for certain reasons have always been allowed by law, sex, age, religion, etc. it kind of sounds to me like you don't agree with personal freedoms--as far as I can tell, I may be wrong. America was built on that principle and should still be allowing it. Last point--it does seem that the biden (phony) administration is trying to divide the vaxxed against the unvaxxed. People should not fall for their ploy and we should stick together.
Well she is catholic .. False religion imo .. They can do basically anything and confess to their priest and its ok .. Also praying to false idols .. Mary statue ..
Never should expect much from them .. Biden , Pelosi etc.. All cathoilic
How are you that oblivious? I worry about people like you.
Calling her a sexist slur (which I use myself) without *actually reading and comprehending *the SC case is just absurd.
She operates by the rule of law and values integrity in what it means to be a Justice. She did not say that she 'disagreed' with the merits sought by the applicants, but rather that the use of an emergency docket that lacked the formal proceedings of a SC case was not the platform to instill decisions that could be used to force the court to have similar assessments.
Full briefing and oral arguments means we get to assess the justifications of the SC on both sides.
There is a reason they added their consensus, rather than choosing not to. The SC case did not make any determination about 'religious freedom' nor did it even say that Maine is particularly violating their constitutional right by failing to provide the means of applying for such exemptions.
Sorry my set of beliefs do not align with yours, but to call me a 'leftist' is laughable and only indicative of your ignorance. I value dialogue that is reasonable and productive, not jabs that lack any substance and only serve to provide material evidence that some of us here lack character and class.
How long are we gonna keep saying this if shit doesn’t get sprung into action, I’m getting tired of hearing this while at the same time witnessing the destruction of the country that nobody is doing anything about.
He appointed ACB’s shitty ass FOR LIFE, as far as I’m concerned the deep state IS winning where it actually matters and nobody is doing anything about it.
They are being threatened and they don’t have the spine to stand up to the people threatening them. He shouldn’t have chosen weak people with young children.
From what I understand they denied the emergency appeal, not the appeal itself working its way though the courts. I'm guessing they'll address the issue through one of the conflicting Circuit court rulings, hopefully sooner rather than later.
It always amazes me how some things get downvoted.
Obviously exposing the corruption in SCOTUS is part of the plan.
If people can't see how corrupt the Supreme Court has been the last 50 years they are f****** blind
You mean like how people can't see the election fraud? You mean like how people can't see the pandemic fraud? You mean like how people can't see the 911 fraud? You mean like how people can't see the Federal Reserve fraud, or the WWII fraud or the WWI fraud or the Cold War fraud or the JFK fraud or the....
Until all the systems are exposed people won't see it. Thats the whole fucking point of the Plan.
I think ACB was put in there to expose the SCOTUS fraud.
This is good news, and the interpretation of this was taken out of context.
Barrett & Kavanaugh essentially argued that the decision to approve the application could serve to be misused and force the court to take on cases it would otherwise not be involved in.
The 'emergency hearing' is not similar to that of a normal SC case, as they describe it lacks full briefing and opportunities for oral arguments.
They do not infer that religious mandates are constitutional.
This does not impact any States that have prescribed methods of pursuing a religious exemption, nor does it provide merit to revoke such methods.
It doesn't even really address the real subject in that which is surrounds the reason for the denial, which was given to their discretionary approval.
The case itself should be read, which includes seeking relief that would come from the acknowledgement that 1) Maine is violating federal and statutory rights by not allow religious exemptions and 2) Several healthcare providers are breaking the law in enforcing this...
Does that sound like 'relief' that they can grant from something without a full briefing? Without oral arguments?
To imply a scope that would include every state that doesn't have religious exemptions and vindicate healthcare providers?
Im not passing judgement yet, the remedy for discrimination is a lawsuit AFTER THE FACT. No one is saying in this decision that they dont have rights to religious exemptions, the ruling was whether or not the State of Maine could have an injunction against them for this action. I dont believe there is any law supporting an injunction, and nothing indicates the court will not support them once they have had an adverse employment action against them. Dont take every loss as a defeat, there is some legal maneuvers being made to try and set other precedents, not all of them will succeed. The IU case was dismissed because IU gave them all religious exemptions, so they no longer had standing to sue. The press reported this a defeat as well, just need someone without religious exemption to take a case to the supreme court. In the mean time plan on being out of work to stand up to tyranny, its not the end of the world. I'm prepared to be without a job because my Lord is the only one I need to impress with my actions.
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.
It's time send her letters telling her how bad she is.
Strongly worded letters! With frowns faces on them!
Shes been such a disappointment!!
Both her and Kavanaugh! They owe Trump bigly, and they've done nothing but betray MAGA! Time to replace them!
Time to replace them, what exactly are you advocating?
I assume impeachment.
Uopdate your assumptions. She'd need a decade+ of "outrageous" SCOTUS decisions before it would even be brought up. And then by whom, the bought off Senate? Look what they allowed from Ginsburg for nearly 3 decades. No one will impeach shit.
I know this is an unpopular opinion here, but personally I believe vaccine exemptions are discriminatory. Period.
And they are divisive. Not many people who finally cave and get vaxxed continue to fight for the unvaxxed.
Exemptions are yet another tool to divide us.
This is not about 'vaxxines', that is actually a genetic modification experimental injection, but safeguarding religious beliefs, which fall under the 1965 Civil Rights Act, Title VII. It doesn't matter what the case is. Religious beliefs are to be secured and safeguarded.
If pork was mandated to Muslims and Jews, would those who don't like eating pork and cave continue fighting for those whose religious beliefs forbids them?
It's irrelevant and not divisive nor discriminatory.
The Civil Rights Act provides for religious beliefs to be safeguarded and secured in all public accommodations including businesses. A religious exemption is not a request, but is a LAW of land for over 55 years.
You actually got a good point about that.
You are allowed to have your opinion--even though it is wrong😊. Seriously though, I disagree with exemptions dividing people. Firstly, no one should know whether or not some one else is or isn't vaccinated. Secondly, exemptions for certain reasons have always been allowed by law, sex, age, religion, etc. it kind of sounds to me like you don't agree with personal freedoms--as far as I can tell, I may be wrong. America was built on that principle and should still be allowing it. Last point--it does seem that the biden (phony) administration is trying to divide the vaxxed against the unvaxxed. People should not fall for their ploy and we should stick together.
How did Trump get her so wrong!!!
He pushes his enemy’s to the front for all to see.
Yea pushes them to the front to fuck us in the ass.
For a lifetime appointment? Cone on.
Eveybody was chearing for her during the Bush years. Trump is human too.
Alito has been the one surprise over the years to be honest.
Oh ffs just send them all to gitmo already.
CUNT WHORE
True
Well she is catholic .. False religion imo .. They can do basically anything and confess to their priest and its ok .. Also praying to false idols .. Mary statue ..
Never should expect much from them .. Biden , Pelosi etc.. All cathoilic
Catholics are evil through and through.
https://apnews.com/article/europe-france-child-abuse-sexual-abuse-by-clergy-religion-ab5da1ff10f905b1c338a6f3427a1c66
My Catholic mother still stands by “evil people leading the church not being the truth of its teachings.”
Despite being a Trump supporter and highly red pilled, I’m not sure she’ll ever see the light on this one.
And more of them are streaming across the border. What could go wrong
Stupid cunt.
Sexist identified who can't read
How are you that oblivious? I worry about people like you.
Calling her a sexist slur (which I use myself) without *actually reading and comprehending *the SC case is just absurd.
She operates by the rule of law and values integrity in what it means to be a Justice. She did not say that she 'disagreed' with the merits sought by the applicants, but rather that the use of an emergency docket that lacked the formal proceedings of a SC case was not the platform to instill decisions that could be used to force the court to have similar assessments.
Full briefing and oral arguments means we get to assess the justifications of the SC on both sides.
There is a reason they added their consensus, rather than choosing not to. The SC case did not make any determination about 'religious freedom' nor did it even say that Maine is particularly violating their constitutional right by failing to provide the means of applying for such exemptions.
Sorry my set of beliefs do not align with yours, but to call me a 'leftist' is laughable and only indicative of your ignorance. I value dialogue that is reasonable and productive, not jabs that lack any substance and only serve to provide material evidence that some of us here lack character and class.
https://www.reddit.com/user/Nevy_8
BOO HOO
Females and Satan have an understanding. Been that way for a while.
get snipped.
Boo Hoo
Basedaf
Who knew incels were real.
DememtedRoastie says what?
I said this would happen and people were mad at me. She's no good.
How long are we gonna keep saying this if shit doesn’t get sprung into action, I’m getting tired of hearing this while at the same time witnessing the destruction of the country that nobody is doing anything about.
He appointed ACB’s shitty ass FOR LIFE, as far as I’m concerned the deep state IS winning where it actually matters and nobody is doing anything about it.
Give it a year and we will be Australia.
Have you even read the case? Do you understand how to interpret cases?
Oh, yeah! RED OCTOBER has been a bigly win!
They are being threatened and they don’t have the spine to stand up to the people threatening them. He shouldn’t have chosen weak people with young children.
If The Plan is false you have no control. If the plan is real it isn't your plan. Therefore, you are powerless either way, aren't you?
We need to go back to three SCOTUS Justices. Those 3, in particular.
Coney Barret went to Rhodes in Memphis. Yes, that Rhodes -
My niece went tto Rhodes too and then went to Oxford to become a good little liberal. Our unis are producing fuckwads like rabbits produce offspring.
I knew she was going to be shit the second I found out about the Haitian kid. Major red flag.
Not here, not after hearing she “adopted” children from Haiti.
What did people.expect? She's a roman puppet too.
From what I understand they denied the emergency appeal, not the appeal itself working its way though the courts. I'm guessing they'll address the issue through one of the conflicting Circuit court rulings, hopefully sooner rather than later.
A good rule of thumb is whether she agreed with Thomas or not.
And in this case she did not, which tells me all I need to know
I agree, how many men did she sleep with to get where she is?
I think exposing the corruption and inherent flaw in the Supreme Court is part of the plan. I think there will be more of this to come.
Oh cut it out. If people can't see how corrupt the Supreme Court has been the last 50 years they are f****** blind
It always amazes me how some things get downvoted.
Obviously exposing the corruption in SCOTUS is part of the plan.
You mean like how people can't see the election fraud? You mean like how people can't see the pandemic fraud? You mean like how people can't see the 911 fraud? You mean like how people can't see the Federal Reserve fraud, or the WWII fraud or the WWI fraud or the Cold War fraud or the JFK fraud or the....
Until all the systems are exposed people won't see it. Thats the whole fucking point of the Plan.
I think ACB was put in there to expose the SCOTUS fraud.
She is bought and paid for. If people can't see all the corruption you mentioned then they are fucking blind and your rants do not change reality.
oooh just two more justices
She's a liberal. The question is: why was she nominated?
She’s like a one woman sleeper cell
Does no one ever think that Trump picks would be prime targets for blackmail? Threats? Always wait and listen to the full story.
This is good news, and the interpretation of this was taken out of context.
Barrett & Kavanaugh essentially argued that the decision to approve the application could serve to be misused and force the court to take on cases it would otherwise not be involved in.
The 'emergency hearing' is not similar to that of a normal SC case, as they describe it lacks full briefing and opportunities for oral arguments.
They do not infer that religious mandates are constitutional.
This does not impact any States that have prescribed methods of pursuing a religious exemption, nor does it provide merit to revoke such methods.
It doesn't even really address the real subject in that which is surrounds the reason for the denial, which was given to their discretionary approval.
The case itself should be read, which includes seeking relief that would come from the acknowledgement that 1) Maine is violating federal and statutory rights by not allow religious exemptions and 2) Several healthcare providers are breaking the law in enforcing this...
Does that sound like 'relief' that they can grant from something without a full briefing? Without oral arguments?
To imply a scope that would include every state that doesn't have religious exemptions and vindicate healthcare providers?
Bigger cases to come than this one.
Well why the fuck did Trump choose her then?
I hate to say this, but she is a woman.
I hate to say this, but you are an imbecile.
Sexism isn't cool, nor is it any component of the Great Awakening movement.
It's not sexism...isms are fully concocted to make everything black or white.
A generalization sure but for the use of brevity I'll just say woman are more inclined to emotional decision making.
That's not sexist that's just science.
I never trusted her.
Im not passing judgement yet, the remedy for discrimination is a lawsuit AFTER THE FACT. No one is saying in this decision that they dont have rights to religious exemptions, the ruling was whether or not the State of Maine could have an injunction against them for this action. I dont believe there is any law supporting an injunction, and nothing indicates the court will not support them once they have had an adverse employment action against them. Dont take every loss as a defeat, there is some legal maneuvers being made to try and set other precedents, not all of them will succeed. The IU case was dismissed because IU gave them all religious exemptions, so they no longer had standing to sue. The press reported this a defeat as well, just need someone without religious exemption to take a case to the supreme court. In the mean time plan on being out of work to stand up to tyranny, its not the end of the world. I'm prepared to be without a job because my Lord is the only one I need to impress with my actions.
They have not decided to take the case yet.
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.
This is not a defeat.