The SCOTUS didn't strike down any legal opposition to the vaccines or mandates. They dismissed the rulings that had previously been made, some for and some against.
This in no way prevents or inhibits legal opposition. It can very well be seen as a set back, because if (when?) the federal govt tried to implement vaccine mandates in the future, cases would be have to be brought again, because the legal precedents that were set were vacated, meaning they were wiped in terms of having legal precedent.
Framing this as "striking down any legal opposition to " mandates etc, is extremely bogus. It's not factual.
I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought.
My problem is, that sometimes, in order to attempt bringing balance to an emotionally charged subject, I lean too far and end up tipping the boat over!!!!
But seriously, thanks for the feedback! Fortunately, pretty much all of us are on the same team, so a bit of back and forth helps to broaden our overall views.
“
I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought”
This can also be said by way too many posts on here. Less hyperbole the better.
I think it's a balance, but I also think it behooves the mods and the board to think of ways that higher quality posting can be encouraged and posts that lean toward the tabloidish can be discouraged. But as I said, it's a balance. The OP did post a good link, which helped, imo.
Came here to say this. Injunctive relief is extraordinary relief. Once the mandate was removed there is nothing for the courts to hear. That's why Biden Admin vacated the mandate before there could be a ruling.
The other article I'm wary of, because of all the emotionally charged terms, narratives and stories they use. I should go and read it to get a better idea, but I went to the more factual article as a preference.
I actually just complained about this sort of practice a day or two ago. Just posting headlines from all over the internet about anything gums up the board. Either take the time to read the article yourself and create your own title with an understanding that more accurately reflects the contents of said article that doesn’t reflect the clickbait nature of the original headline or don’t post it at all. If we wanted to read clickbait garbage we wouldn’t be here. I think these are low effort posts and somehow a rule should be established by the mods to deal with it as they are becoming increasingly prevalent and work contrary to the function of the board. Anybody can just copy and past clickbait headlines all day and it shouldn’t be allowed.
It would've been nice to keep the rulings on file, but since lower courts were divided anyway, they just said not to use any of them --- for or against --- as precedent. Could've been better, but it's not awful either.
It's not really based on a quick review of this article. You can't get injunctive relief when someone stops doing what you wanted them to stop doing. Based on my cursory review of this article, it looks like Biden Administration stopped the mandate before the court could rule on whether the mandate should be stopped.
A different example would be someone going to court to stop people from blocking traffic in protest of animal cruelty or climate change. If by the time you get to court the protestors are gone, the court has no power to issue an injunction. It's kind of the same thing. The issue isn't "ripe" for adjudication.
I did. When they pushed the vaccine, and said everyone mandated thru companies. I said no and if they want to fire me, I was going to work elsewhere and give up my comfy job.
I did get fired last year from my tech company because I refused the jab. Although I got the religious exemption at the very last moment, the management already planned on firing me. They came up with some other excuse, gave me a performance warning and 3 months later fired me when I didn't accept their terms. Since then, I lost my appetite to work. Just filling out online surveys and making few bucks here and there. I have no interest in fueling the petro-dollar based economy that most of my hard earned money ends up with BlackRocks anyway. Good thing is I don't have to pay taxes this year, since I wasn't employed! Less dollars for the warmongers.
I told my family I was ready to work in restaurants busing dishes and pound some nails. Last thing I wanted to do but if push comes to shove, I will.
Took a loan out of my 401K so less for BlackRock. There isn't much there anyway but the less they got the better. Go buy a vehicle because we have been operating on a one vehicle for a long while now and quite inconvenient.
I converted all my 401k investments from stocks into precious metals. I don't trust stock market, it could collapse any moment. I hear any asset is better than fiat dollar. Vehicle, house, real estate, metals.
Oh, I didn't take out any. I just converted the assets - meaning precious metals are managed by a retirement custodian. You're right, taking anything out before retirement results in 30% penalty.
Your headline is extremely misleading and full of interpretation.
I read through the source article: at https://thevaccinereaction.org/
The SCOTUS didn't strike down any legal opposition to the vaccines or mandates. They dismissed the rulings that had previously been made, some for and some against.
This in no way prevents or inhibits legal opposition. It can very well be seen as a set back, because if (when?) the federal govt tried to implement vaccine mandates in the future, cases would be have to be brought again, because the legal precedents that were set were vacated, meaning they were wiped in terms of having legal precedent.
Framing this as "striking down any legal opposition to " mandates etc, is extremely bogus. It's not factual.
I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought.
$0.02
Thanks for bringing some balance to an emotionally charged subject.
kek.
My problem is, that sometimes, in order to attempt bringing balance to an emotionally charged subject, I lean too far and end up tipping the boat over!!!!
But seriously, thanks for the feedback! Fortunately, pretty much all of us are on the same team, so a bit of back and forth helps to broaden our overall views.
On this I am in agreement. Well stated sir.
Well you're not alone. I try to bring balance or refute silly posts when I can.
“ I suggest you might not get as many clicks if you actually just stick to factual information instead of posting things with narrative spin, but you'd be doing the board a favor by practicing a higher standard and not encouraging hyper emotionalized reactions that merely stimulate narrative spin as opposed to clear thinking, objective evaluation and free thought”
This can also be said by way too many posts on here. Less hyperbole the better.
I think it's a balance, but I also think it behooves the mods and the board to think of ways that higher quality posting can be encouraged and posts that lean toward the tabloidish can be discouraged. But as I said, it's a balance. The OP did post a good link, which helped, imo.
Came here to say this. Injunctive relief is extraordinary relief. Once the mandate was removed there is nothing for the courts to hear. That's why Biden Admin vacated the mandate before there could be a ruling.
It's not my headline. It's their headline. I just use it as it is. I am sorry you don't like it.
Do you think its helpful to just post sensationalist headlines as is, and that as posters, we have no responsibility to vet what we're posting?
When you post it, it becomes YOUR headline, imo.
I don't know that it's that I don't like it. I like the article that they quoted: https://thevaccinereaction.org/2023/12/supreme-court-wipes-out-three-rulings-rejecting-federal-covid-vaccine-mandate/
Which you also linked (which was very good).
The other article I'm wary of, because of all the emotionally charged terms, narratives and stories they use. I should go and read it to get a better idea, but I went to the more factual article as a preference.
If it’s not your headline put it in quotes. That’s what they are for.
Oh. I got it. Thanks.
I actually just complained about this sort of practice a day or two ago. Just posting headlines from all over the internet about anything gums up the board. Either take the time to read the article yourself and create your own title with an understanding that more accurately reflects the contents of said article that doesn’t reflect the clickbait nature of the original headline or don’t post it at all. If we wanted to read clickbait garbage we wouldn’t be here. I think these are low effort posts and somehow a rule should be established by the mods to deal with it as they are becoming increasingly prevalent and work contrary to the function of the board. Anybody can just copy and past clickbait headlines all day and it shouldn’t be allowed.
Hear, hear!
Thank you!
WTF? So does this mean all the progress from the last year+ is effectively wiped out?
Nope.
Sure looked like it.
It would've been nice to keep the rulings on file, but since lower courts were divided anyway, they just said not to use any of them --- for or against --- as precedent. Could've been better, but it's not awful either.
I just think this is so devastating. It might just be a movie too. Will see.
It's not really based on a quick review of this article. You can't get injunctive relief when someone stops doing what you wanted them to stop doing. Based on my cursory review of this article, it looks like Biden Administration stopped the mandate before the court could rule on whether the mandate should be stopped.
A different example would be someone going to court to stop people from blocking traffic in protest of animal cruelty or climate change. If by the time you get to court the protestors are gone, the court has no power to issue an injunction. It's kind of the same thing. The issue isn't "ripe" for adjudication.
So you mean, problem solved. Don't need to do anything until the next time it pops up?
Still not good, right?
“Devastating”? You sound like a liberal when you use those kind of words. Tone it down a bit.
Thanks.
Its time We the people take matters to our own hands! Military is silent as usual.
I did. When they pushed the vaccine, and said everyone mandated thru companies. I said no and if they want to fire me, I was going to work elsewhere and give up my comfy job.
I wasn't afraid to say no, but hell no.
I did get fired last year from my tech company because I refused the jab. Although I got the religious exemption at the very last moment, the management already planned on firing me. They came up with some other excuse, gave me a performance warning and 3 months later fired me when I didn't accept their terms. Since then, I lost my appetite to work. Just filling out online surveys and making few bucks here and there. I have no interest in fueling the petro-dollar based economy that most of my hard earned money ends up with BlackRocks anyway. Good thing is I don't have to pay taxes this year, since I wasn't employed! Less dollars for the warmongers.
If you are in tech, do you know about Upwork? Freelance.
Yeah, I signed up on upwork, yet to finish the resume. Might finish it sometime next year. Freelance, gig works, etc.
Good.
I told my family I was ready to work in restaurants busing dishes and pound some nails. Last thing I wanted to do but if push comes to shove, I will.
Took a loan out of my 401K so less for BlackRock. There isn't much there anyway but the less they got the better. Go buy a vehicle because we have been operating on a one vehicle for a long while now and quite inconvenient.
I converted all my 401k investments from stocks into precious metals. I don't trust stock market, it could collapse any moment. I hear any asset is better than fiat dollar. Vehicle, house, real estate, metals.
I have very little in there and took out half because if I take everything, I pay hefty penalty.
Hence the reason take out half to buy a car. :)
Oh, I didn't take out any. I just converted the assets - meaning precious metals are managed by a retirement custodian. You're right, taking anything out before retirement results in 30% penalty.
Smart.
👆Don’t comply takes conviction. You gotta be willing to lean into it no matter the consequences. It’s the only way.
Yes. Doing the right thing is extremely hard.
..and very satisfying.
Oh yes. Certainly.