SO GREAT ALERT: SCOTUS upholds RU vaccine mandate

[NotInRHouse]

You just LOVE to see it! KING Holloway takes the W again!

- He crushed antisemites who criticized his brilliant deal with the protesters!

- Anyone not vaxxed can't get in!

- Arab Center and refugee students plan moving forward!

It's no wonder RU is the top ranked public school in the Northeast and a top 5 recruiting class in both major sports! KING Holloway is filtering out the trash!

Supreme Court rejects appeals brought by RFK Jr.-founded anti-vaccine group over Covid shots

The justices declined to hear cases brought by Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group founded by independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[JudgeSmails56]

That vaccine is trash. Can’t believe some sheep think it’s a good thing.

 

[retired711]

You just LOVE to see it! KING Holloway takes the W again!

- He crushed antisemites who criticized his brilliant deal with the protesters!

- Anyone not vaxxed can't get in!

- Arab Center and refugee students plan moving forward!

It's no wonder RU is the top ranked public school in the Northeast and a top 5 recruiting class in both major sports! KING Holloway is filtering out the trash!

Supreme Court rejects appeals brought by RFK Jr.-founded anti-vaccine group over Covid shots

The justices declined to hear cases brought by Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group founded by independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

www.nbcnews.com

The Supreme Court did *not* uphold the vaccine mandate. All it did was to refuse to hear challenges to lower court decisions upholding it. Having taken Constitutional Law in law school, you know that's not the same thing.

BTW, have you noticed that Rutgers has abolished the covid vaccination mandate? So much for "Holloway takes the W again!"

https://www.rutgers.edu/covid19

 

[RULoyal]

Moron

 

[Leonard23]

Honestly, we don't need this crap cluttering this board. Take it to the CE board or add it to the other threads on this topic.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The Supreme Court did *not* uphold the vaccine mandate. All it did was to refuse to hear challenges to lower court decisions upholding it. Having taken Constitutional Law in law school, you know that's not the same thing.

BTW, have you noticed that Rutgers has abolished the covid vaccination mandate? So much for "Holloway takes the W again!"

https://www.rutgers.edu/covid19

And the practical effect it is upheld. If it was so unconstitutional as claimed, they'd have taken the case.

And it is a win for the other mandates the school has, and has had, like most, for ages.

 

[retired711]

And the practical effect it is upheld. If it was so unconstitutional as claimed, they'd have taken the case.

And it is a win for the other mandates the school has, and has had, like most, for ages.

You're lowering my opinion of your law school alma mater by the moment. The Supreme Court receives each year 8000 petitions for certiorari (for those of you who don't know, that's a petition to the Supreme Court to hear a case) an the Court hears at most one hundred cases a year. The Court hasn't got time for more. Thus rejections of petitions do not mean that the Court thinks the lower court opinion is correct; it just means that the Court doesn't think the case is important enough to hear. (Often the Court will wait until there is a conflict in the lower courts, i.e. a case coming to the opposite result, before hearing a matter.) Anybody who has spent five minutes in a Constitutional Law class knows that a denial of a petition for certiorari is not a decision on the merits of a case. Are you sure you were awake when you took the course? This is really beneath you.

 

[NotInRHouse]

You're lowering my opinion of your law school alma mater by the moment. The Supreme Court receives each year 8000 petitions for certiorari (for those of you who don't know, that's a petition to the Supreme Court to hear a case) an the Court hears at most one hundred cases a year. The Court hasn't got time for more. Thus rejections of petitions do not mean that the Court thinks the lower court opinion is correct; it just means that the Court doesn't think the case is important enough to hear. (Often the Court will wait until there is a conflict in the lower courts, i.e. a case coming to the opposite result, before hearing a matter.) Anybody who has spent five minutes in a Constitutional Law class knows that a denial of a petition for certiorari is not a decision on the merits of a case. Are you sure you were awake when you took the course? This is really beneath you.

Right. The point being if this was the issue it was (falsely) contended to be on this board it would have been taken up. Even the 5th Circuit couldn't seem to mangle a case forward on it which should really tell you something. Or the clowns at the district courts in LA and TX didn't want to get torn a new one for fabricating a record like they did by a judge from their own side. Sad.

 

[retired711]

Right. The point being if this was the issue it was (falsely) contended to be on this board it would have been taken up. Even the 5th Circuit couldn't seem to mangle a case forward on it which should really tell you something. Or the clowns at the district courts in LA and TX didn't want to get torn a new one for fabricating a record like they did by a judge from their own side. Sad.

If that was your point, you would have done better, I think, to have expressed it that way in the first place.