Anonymous ID: 53fcc0 Jan. 13, 2022, 5:06 p.m. No.15369462   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9469 >>9482 >>9486 >>9493 >>9535 >>9562 >>9757 >>9764 >>9820 >>0036

There are laws against forcing anyone to take experimental drugs, so the SCOTUS ruling is not a win because it will cause people to lose their ability to make a living. Good people in healthcare will either quit to avoid the experiment or die if they submit. NO ONE should be mandated to take any medical treatment.

 

SCOTUS is compromised and we are not a free country. As for the question in the national anthem, “oh say, does that star spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?” the answer is “NO”.

Anonymous ID: 53fcc0 Jan. 13, 2022, 5:17 p.m. No.15369536   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9573

>>15369493

Problem is, freedom-minded providers will bail and leave the vax automatons. Unless you’re vaxxed they may refuse to treat you or give you poor care.

 

If freedom-minded providers start their own clinics insurance may try to jerk them around. It also would take years to build their own hospitals.

Anonymous ID: 53fcc0 Jan. 13, 2022, 5:21 p.m. No.15369560   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>15369535

It definitely needs to collapse, it’s all about money and not at all about health. None of the players from hospitals to insurance companies to big pharma do not want cures because they’ll lose their customers.

 

But as long as Fauxci is over government funding for studies and Dems are in charge it can’t change. Or anything coming out of a collapsible will be comped.

Anonymous ID: 53fcc0 Jan. 13, 2022, 5:42 p.m. No.15369709   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>15369303 (lb)

> This is a stark example of our SCOTUS violating the 14th Amendment, Equal protection under the law. One group of citizens rights weigh more than another's just because the government says so.

 

Some animals are more equal than others, according to SCOTUS.

Anonymous ID: 53fcc0 Jan. 13, 2022, 5:58 p.m. No.15369831   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9860

>>15369764

> anons, the SCOTUS did not rule on constitutionality in these cases. they simply upheld or struck down a lower court's emergency stays, based on a likelihood that they would win if fully adjudicated.

>I still think the issue whether it is constitutional to mandate an experimental vaccine could be litigated.

 

Do you think there would be a different outcome of it we’re litigated