A while back I posted on Sonia Sotomayor rejecting a plea for SCOTUS to block the NYC vaccine mandate. Now the court has a second bite at this apple with a submission made to Justice Thomas
"Last month, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected a request by Det. Anthony Marciano to look further at his legal challenge — the outcome of which could have significant implications for Mayor Eric Adams’ administration. But Marciano resubmitted the exact same request to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, and the high court’s press office confirmed Tuesday the case will be deliberated at a conference Oct. 7."
That's this Friday.
First thing I'll point out is that it shouldn't be necessary to "resubmit" such a claim. If you have bodily autonomy then it should have been upheld immediately.
"Marciano sued the city last year challenging a policy requiring municipal workers be inoculated against Covid-19. He did not qualify for religious or medical exemptions, but instead argued he’d acquired immunity through his front-line service and should be free to make his own decision about getting the jab."
His situation parallels mine in that I did not make a religious or medical exemption request. I stood on law. First the ADA strictly forbids employers, public or private from inquiring about the actual or perceived medical conditions of employees or potential employees unless they can demonstrate that such a condition prevents the person from carrying out their duties. The latter exception did not apply in my case and I suppose it didn't in Marciano's.
Secondly, the ADA specifically covers bodily functions including the functions of the immune system.
Hence any employer, including the state cannot ask about or otherwise discriminate against employees in regards to "vaccines". Had we had an actually functioning "justice" system, this issue would have been resolved the first time any mention of "mandate" popped up.
"The case, Finn said, is simple: State and federal laws prohibit vaccine mandates without the recipient’s informed consent. And because Marciano did not give his consent, the suit alleges, his due process rights are being violated."
I would add that it was 100% impossible for Marciano or anyone else to give informed consent because the vaccines were experimental and nobody knew the health effects either short or long. The only consent that a person in 2021 could give was consent to be experimented on. The Nuremberg code, to which the US is a signatory explicitly bans medical experimentation on unwilling persons. The EUA under which these "vaccines" were approved also explicitly prohibits the coercion of persons to take such emergency use products.
Again, if we had a functioning justice system this wouldn't even be controversial.
"Thus far, lawsuits against the city’s mandate for city workers have failed, as state and federal courts have affirmed the city’s broad power to enact vaccine requirements.
Assuming this to actually be the case rather than the fever dream of elderly judges scared of the air, then it is high time to revisit this "broad power".
“The Supreme Court has rejected numerous attempts to have it take up lawsuits on the vaccine mandate and a number of other courts have upheld the mandate, recognizing that it saves lives and is a condition of employment,” mayoral spokesperson Fabien Levy said in a statement."
"recognizing that it saves lives" That is a statement of fact with no underlying proof. That is the entire problem here. These courts have been presupposing that what the CDC has said is "fact" when there is and was no way to make such a claim. The fact of myocarditis, blood clots, and deaths that are directly attributable to these shots is indisputable. Remember (or learn) that in the past just a handful of deaths associated with a medical product was enough to get a product pulled, yet there are thousands of deaths from this shot and it is*still* being offered and "mandated."
Again, a sane justice system would immediately strike down such mandates. We shall see what comes up on Friday.
