The Coronavirus thread

Quote: Evenbob

Just saw dr. Fuji on the news finally admitting that 40% or more of people in the hospital for covid are not being treated for covid they are there for something else. When they were tested in the hospital and were positive for covid the hospital lists them as covid patients when they are not.

This is my expectation. Been in 3 days now and expect Covid soon.

Quote: JCW09

You may want to stay in your lane on that side of The Pond
You clearly know very little about interpreting our Constitution or the Constitutionality of legislation.
"Conservative" judges tend to be "textualists" & follow the meaning of the text of the Document
Their decisions are based on the way the laws are written, full stop.
It's why Conservatives aren't always happy with what a Conservative Judge decides.
Liberal judges are the ones that make up their minds based on their own biases & political leaning.
Then the libbies try and fit their skewed view into a "modern" interpretation of the Constitution which is always flawed logically.
As Mission said, there is no Constitutional support for the vaccine mandate, so it got shut down.
Freedom, it is something we dumped your form government to achieve. On your way Red Coat!

This is all correct except, "Liberal judges," and, "Libbies," should be followed with, "And some Conservative ones."

For example, Kim Davis, as an employee of the local Government, had to issue the wedding licenses to gay couples because it was literally her job to do so. However, Davis objected to doing so on religious grounds, despite the fact that the First Amendment of the Constitution calls for a separation of church and state which, in part, means that if you work for the Government the law matters and your pathetic religious opinions do not matter.

If Kim Davis did not want to issue the wedding licenses because she was religiously opposed to doing so, then she did not have to, as quitting her job was an option readily available to her.

Anyway, SCOTUS refused to hear her case, but two Conservative justices, Thomas and Alito, took the opportunity to mention that religious people, whose opinions again do not matter when it comes to issues of Government, were left, "In the lurch," by the SCOTUS deciding, in 2015, that the right for gays to marry is the law of the land!

And, why is it the law of the land? The answer is because the religious definition of the word, "Marriage," does not matter because of the First Amendment that calls for a separation of church and state. Because of that, the Government is not held to defining marriage the same way religion does, because Government should not write its laws based on the opinions of religion and religion is also stupid.

Of course, the landmark decision making gay marriage the law of the land was 5-4 in 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges because the two Conservative, religious, party-line sellouts went the way they were always going to go and two more-or-less objective people who aren't total sellouts joined them.

However, because there is a Federal Income Tax and certain Federal Laws regulating insurance as well as Social Security Survivorship benefits for spouses, it DOES matter whether or not you can marry a given partner and your right to do so is protected by all fifty states.

Ergo, religion, you suck and you lose. I'm sorry for you that your two SCOTUS sellout toadies weren't enough of a start to get you across the finish line on that one.

Quote: Mission146

Where does the Constitution speak in favor of forcing vaccinations on the employees of a business over a certain size? I don't remember seeing the part where that power is specifically conferred upon the Federal Government. .

As matter of fact, the Constitution doesn't state whether man or woman are defined by biology. (because it makes no definition of it)

I just thought I'd throw that in there for food for thought concerning the other thread.

Quote: rxwine

As matter of fact, the Constitution doesn't state whether man or woman are defined by biology. (because it makes no definition of it)

I just thought I'd throw that in there for food for thought concerning the other thread.

Because there is no need to. XX or XY. It is simple stuff.

Quote: Mission146

Where does the Constitution speak in favor of forcing vaccinations on the employees of a business over a certain size? I don't remember seeing the part where that power is specifically conferred upon the Federal Government.

The SCOTUS decision does not address the Federal Governments power to require vaccinations. It only sought to determine if Congress delegated sufficient power to the President to enact it on his own through OSHA regulation.

Quote:

The central question we face today is: Who decides? No one doubts that the COVID–19 pandemic has posed challenges for every American. Or that our state, local, and national governments all have roles to play in combating the disease. The only question is whether an administrative agency in Washington, one charged with overseeing workplace safety, may mandate the vaccination or regular testing of 84 million people. Or whether, as 27 States before us submit, that work belongs to state and local governments across the country and the people’s elected representatives in Congress.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because there is no need to. XX or XY. It is simple stuff.

The constitution doesn't mention using chromosomes either. Keep trying.

Genetics wasn't even a science yet when the Constitution was written or ratified.

Quote: rxwine

The constitution doesn't mention using chromosomes either. Keep trying.

Because there is no need. You have to be of very low intelligence to confuse them.

Quote: AZDuffman

Because there is no need. You have to be of very low intelligence to confuse them.

What's the story behind that? Was it too dark in the bar for you that night?

Quote: rxwine

What's the story behind that? Was it too dark in the bar for you that night?

Nope. I am man enough to say I would not go with a transgender, we covered that before.

I am not the one confused and thinking the Constitution needs to have a definition.