1
Nolagirl99 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hold off as long as you can kiddo! It is going to go through the courts and be ruled correctly. That takes time. Good luck!

1
Nolagirl99 1 point ago +1 / -0

My neighbor wrestles at a large school. They forced the vax on the kid, he was in tears getting it. They’re requiring the booster but the coach is fighting it bc the NAACP says they can’t participate for 14 days. They know it’s killing athletes! Feel so helpless when they knowingly come after the kids

3
Nolagirl99 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hope he launches, let’s everyone sign up, then EVS goes off and the only way to know what happening is truth social which is dropping redpolls with all the evidence! A girl can dream

3
Nolagirl99 3 points ago +3 / -0

Glad your never had to fight in WWII. I’d love to hear and watch you give that same speech to a vet. You must be young or incapable of understanding the bigger picture. If your in a bad situation, change it.

12
Nolagirl99 12 points ago +12 / -0

Nope… if you remember, Trump allowed each state to govern themselves. As it should be. Mississippi never closed. Orleans parish in Louisiana (dem city) is as bad as NY, Jefferson parish borders Orleans and saw more revenue than last year. They never licked down. When you look at the demographics, it was the left cities/states that enforced draconian rules. Why do you think everyone moved south?

2
Nolagirl99 2 points ago +2 / -0

IMO, this is how people learn about the different branches and their functions and limitation. Devolution of the courts if you will

2
Nolagirl99 2 points ago +2 / -0

Here’s the thing, there is still the appellate court for the HHS. This judge just laid out a blueprint of how to proceed with the new challenges.

1
Nolagirl99 1 point ago +1 / -0

That’s where the judges have to look unbiased. “While we think vaccination is best, it’s overreach to force an employee to take it” blah blah blah.

This judge is bringing the focus back to the validity and outright questioning the authority of the president even being able to issue a mandate. The beauty is that he uses SCOTUS’ recent decision to highlight his points.

But if the court is wrong and the President indeed has authority over the conduct of civilian federal employees in general—in or out of the workplace—“what is the logical stopping point of that power?” Kentucky v. Biden, No. 21-6147, 2022 WL 43178, at *15 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2022). Is it a “de facto police power”? Id. The government has offered no answer—no limiting principle to the reach of the power they insist the President enjoys. For its part, this court will say only this: however extensive that power is, the federal-worker mandate exceeds it

2
Nolagirl99 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s more than just existing outside of the workplace. He cited that ruling to use their own decision and words to make the point of medical freedom of choice. The president doesn’t not have the authority to mandate a vaccine. It would have to go through Congress. That’s the new focus. This judge basically told the other attorneys what challenges to bring forth moving forward!

3
Nolagirl99 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exactly! Like u/HelloDolly said, he’s boxing them in with their own language and reasoning.

3
Nolagirl99 3 points ago +3 / -0

What’s funny is it’s typically the paralegals that write the drafts. Judges use previous case law to evidence their decision, that’s where a lot of people get lost but it also helps bc you can go back and reference it. If you use that old English assignment and take out all the big words and unnecessary language, it becomes easier to read.

11
Nolagirl99 11 points ago +11 / -0

The issue is that they focused on the wrong challenge. They focused on whether or not OSHA and HHS have the authority to mandate. The judge even pointed it out when he said the “challenges failed to show imminent harm”. What this case has done is shift the challenge from regulating policy to regulating employment. Here’s a quote from the ruling…

“No legal remedy adequately protects the liberty interest of employees who must choose between violating a mandate of doubtful validity or consenting to an unwanted medical procedure that cannot be undone.”

1
Nolagirl99 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wow! Thank you for taking the time. I have come to value your “uninformed” opinion. I watched GME, tried to convert some stocks to DWAC when you posted but was told by my advisor that the company wouldn’t allow it bc SPAC’s are too risky. I’ve accumulated a few shares on my own but not at the price when you raised the horn that morning. I also threw a hundred into a crypto you suggested and make $300 that day. I think you missed your calling!!

Anyway, I don’t have a ton of money but I have been trying to diversify and squirrel away the best I can. I quadrupled my IRA over the last couple of years but I’m contemplating cashing some of it out to buy some real estate where I can ensure my tribe has somewhere to go. It’s been a great debate for me but it’s been tough trying to get real estate bc it’s gone before I even get a call back. I’ve taken the advice of people and bought some silver and have cash on hand. I have a little crypto but I’m a novice at it so I’ve basically only bought a few that my son (and you) have suggested. Ill definitely be researching the ones you mentioned.

I also have been prepping (to a degree) bc if SHTF I’ll have to travel cross country with my kids and animals to get to my family. I could sustain here for a year but I’d feel better in the south, so I have my go bags, survival tubs, and a plan. I’ve even built an indoor garden that’s flourishing but they’ll be left behind. :( The state of the world right now is confusing and as much as I have faith in the plan, there’s a little part of me that fears the great reset. Or.. I suppose the idea of the country with chickens, a garden, a boat, and peace is also enticing. Anyway, thanks for taking the time. You have way more knowledge than you know!

1
Nolagirl99 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’ve come to respect your financial perspective over time. You’ve called (and shared) quite a few scenarios. That being said, what would you do with your money? Pull it out or let it ride?

2
Nolagirl99 2 points ago +2 / -0

I created a post to try to help with some of the confusion. The injunction should cover ALL federal employees.

https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/141FAZqHch/x/c

2
Nolagirl99 2 points ago +2 / -0

https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/141FAZqHch/x/c

I tried to give a decent explanation of the ruling. I believe it should cover healthcare workers and military

1
Nolagirl99 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, it was the original date, the case was filed in 21… prior to the case moving through the circuits. They held off on this case until SCOTUS ruled. It was a brilliant move bc it allowed the judge to use their own rulings to give merit to imminent harm of job or jab.

5
Nolagirl99 5 points ago +5 / -0

From everything I’ve read, I believe this encompasses healthcare and even the military. It had to be fought this way. I posted an explanation

https://communities.win/c/GreatAwakening/p/141FAZqHch/x/c

25
Nolagirl99 25 points ago +25 / -0

I read legal jumbo all day, saw people asking for clarification. Glad to help when I can!

81
Nolagirl99 81 points ago +81 / -0

Since some are confused on what the ruling means, I figured I’d give an explanation of the latest ruling out of TX.

We all know SCOTUS ruled in favor of blocking the mandate which would allow OSHA to enforce for employers with 100 plus employees. However, EO 14043 was given the go ahead effecting federal employees. Here’s what happened today.

There was a suit filed by FEDS for Medical Freedom in TX to block both EO’s. Since SCOTUS was already hearing arguments, the Texas filing was pushed back, (IMO) to see what SCOTUS ruled. The first date that was going to be mandatory for federal employees was today. The ruling was also issued today (by a trump appointed judge). He issued an injunction (basically a restraining order against the mandate). Now, it will go through the process and eventually be heard by SCOTUS. Here’s the big take always from his ruling….

The challenges (heard by the case SCOTUS ruled on) fell short due to procedural mis steps or failure to show IMMINENT HARM. (That’s the big one)

The big question is submitting to a vaccine as a condition of employment considered workplace conduct? Here’s where it gets good, with the OSHA ruling, the question was answered in their ruling. SCOTUS clearly defined that since covid is not just in the workplace, it’s not a workplace risk, it’s a universal risk.

The judges take away was that the president has the authority to regulate executive branch policies (Medicare and Medicaid). He does NOT have the authority to regulate employment. That was what SCOTUS said in its ruling.

What this brilliant judge did was wait for SCOTUS’ ruling and turned around to use their own words as a means to block the mandate. It had to be fought like this. These new challenges are where the focus should’ve been. We’ll get there, eventually!!

view more: Next ›