You would think that Supreme Court Justices would show more restraint and discretion when dealing with a subject like this. There are stats and numbers all over the place on everything to do with the Wuhan virus. To choose one set and tell people you are making your legal decision based on that is to walk on very unstable ground.
They are not ignorant nor are they misinformed or unprepared.
They are communists, and communists have never had a problem with using misinformation to advance their agenda.
I don't understand why so many people are surprised by communists acting like communists. They have their backs to the wall and its all hands on deck at this point.
Why do you think they have their backs to the wall now? If they backed off for a few months and gave us a breather, they can go right back to the leash and just choke down on it for years.
When everything was going according to plan, they had us on slow boil, and almost no one was aware exactly what was going on.
I interpret the harsh actions, such as the OSHA policy and others like it around the world to be signs that their grip is slipping and they are struggling to maintain control. There is an inverse relationship between the firmness of their control and the harshness of their actions.
If things were totally under their control, it wouldn't be necessary for this judge to make the easily disprovable statements that she did.
While true, you still need to assess the situation to decide relevance etc.
Example. 1st Amendment means you can say anything, but can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Why is that? Because of how many people could get hurt or killed in the panic. To determine that requires an assessment of if that is really true or not. Which means numbers.
Which is why bidens gang is threatening to pack the court, impeach judges, introduce term limits, etc.. the justices have also gone on record saying they know they are perceived politically and they act on that. For example they refused to hear election related cases because of the risk of social unrest. They are not free of politics. Their appointment is a political consideration. Amy barret was a horrendous choice. Anyone who is importing 3rd worlders into the US is clueless about the nature of the US decline, which is directly tied to diversity and mass 3rd world immigration (she imported 2 haitians for some unimaginable reason)
You would think that Supreme Court Justices would show more restraint and discretion when dealing with a subject like this. There are stats and numbers all over the place on everything to do with the Wuhan virus. To choose one set and tell people you are making your legal decision based on that is to walk on very unstable ground.
They are not ignorant nor are they misinformed or unprepared.
They are communists, and communists have never had a problem with using misinformation to advance their agenda.
I don't understand why so many people are surprised by communists acting like communists. They have their backs to the wall and its all hands on deck at this point.
Why do you think they have their backs to the wall now? If they backed off for a few months and gave us a breather, they can go right back to the leash and just choke down on it for years.
When everything was going according to plan, they had us on slow boil, and almost no one was aware exactly what was going on.
I interpret the harsh actions, such as the OSHA policy and others like it around the world to be signs that their grip is slipping and they are struggling to maintain control. There is an inverse relationship between the firmness of their control and the harshness of their actions.
If things were totally under their control, it wouldn't be necessary for this judge to make the easily disprovable statements that she did.
The PTA meeting thing was just such a mask-slip event. Wolf in sheep's clothing.
Klaus is readying himself to come home to an angrier world, so this is all STILL going according to plan.
Remember, Covidianism is a religion. There are obviously at least three justices among the faithful.
regardless of the numbers, propaganda, lies, etc.... they are supposed to rule according to the law/constitution.
While true, you still need to assess the situation to decide relevance etc.
Example. 1st Amendment means you can say anything, but can't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Why is that? Because of how many people could get hurt or killed in the panic. To determine that requires an assessment of if that is really true or not. Which means numbers.
They have an automatic bias toward the desires of the people in the government. Its inherent to being in power. Remember who appoints them after all.
They are appointed for life for a good reason. Once confirmed, you should be free of politics because you are no longer beholden to anybody.
Which is why bidens gang is threatening to pack the court, impeach judges, introduce term limits, etc.. the justices have also gone on record saying they know they are perceived politically and they act on that. For example they refused to hear election related cases because of the risk of social unrest. They are not free of politics. Their appointment is a political consideration. Amy barret was a horrendous choice. Anyone who is importing 3rd worlders into the US is clueless about the nature of the US decline, which is directly tied to diversity and mass 3rd world immigration (she imported 2 haitians for some unimaginable reason)
Should be but communists see it differently