Create Account


Board Performance Issues We are aware of performance issues on the board and are working to resolve them! The board may be intermittently unavailable during this time. (May 07) x


The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Two Different Federal Judges Just Blocked Biden's Vaccine Mandate

#1

This is GREAT news for the people that refuse to be Lab Rats.......

Two Different Federal Judges Just Blocked Biden's Vaccine Mandate

A day after President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate suffered a major loss in court, two more judges acted to blunt the impact of Biden’s edict.

https://www.westernjournal.com/two-diffe...8q_fF2pAy0
Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

FJB. I'm sure he got enough unwilling sheep to bend the knee to make his unconstitutional mandate worthwhile. Now what happens in 4 months when it wears off...
Reply

#3

So essentially they said Let's Go Brandon to his mandates. Good.
Reply

#4

It doesn't matter. The ball is in motion. Companies that instituted these policies aren't changing them.
Reply

#5

(12-01-2021, 09:56 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: It doesn't matter. The ball is in motion. Companies that instituted these policies aren't changing them.
Companies now have no support to pass the buck. They are now liable for all damages, all lawsuits, and discrimination.

The State has the power to mandate vaccines. Companies can also make it a condition of employment. That is established law. There are 2 issues that they now have. They have mandated an EUA drug and a federal judge ruled that there is a difference with the FDA approved vaccine. They have also discriminated against people with religious and medical exemptions.

They can choose not to change the policy but they have to approve the exemptions. They also will have to deal with lawsuits if they harm someone with an EUA drug.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 02:19 AM by NewJagsCity.)

(12-01-2021, 09:56 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: It doesn't matter. The ball is in motion. Companies that instituted these policies aren't changing them.

Not entirely true. St Vincent's Ascension (hospitals and primary care centers) here in Jacksonville lifted the mandate and the suspensions of those employees that were released for refusing the vaccine.
"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption
Reply

#7

I noticed that. They are hurting. Yet companies like Cisco are moving ahead full steam. These giant corporations either can't or won't come off it. That's more specifically what I was referring to. I said this when the policy was made: It was never designed to be constitutional. It was designed to get the corporate world to do the government's bidding. They knew that, and they got a lot of people vaccinated because of it.
Reply

#8
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 08:31 AM by StroudCrowd1.)

(12-06-2021, 03:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I noticed that. They are hurting. Yet companies like Cisco are moving ahead full steam. These giant corporations either can't or won't come off it. That's more  specifically what I was referring to. I said this when the policy was made: It was never designed to be constitutional. It was designed to get the corporate world to do the government's bidding. They knew that, and they got a lot of people vaccinated because of it.

So now what? 

People who were forced to get the jab against their will are going to opt out of the booster if their company policy changed during that time. Their plan to have corporations do their bidding was short sighted, overall ineffective,  and pissed off millions of people in the process.
Reply

#9

Was it ineffective? I bet it increased vaccination rates by 10 to 20 percent. I'd like to see these companies sued. It's the only thing that will make them think twice about doing this in the future. However, I don't think that suit can be won.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10

(12-06-2021, 10:55 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Was it ineffective? I bet it increased vaccination rates by 10 to 20 percent. I'd like to see these companies sued. It's the only thing that will make them think twice about doing this in the future. However, I don't think that suit can be won.

What I was implying was that these people will no longer be "vaccinated" when they decline to take the booster.
Reply

#11
(This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 12:03 PM by NewJagsCity. Edited 4 times in total.)

(12-06-2021, 03:14 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: I noticed that. They are hurting. Yet companies like Cisco are moving ahead full steam. These giant corporations either can't or won't come off it. That's more specifically what I was referring to. I said this when the policy was made: It was never designed to be constitutional. It was designed to get the corporate world to do the government's bidding. They knew that, and they got a lot of people vaccinated because of it.

(12-06-2021, 10:55 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Was it ineffective? I bet it increased vaccination rates by 10 to 20 percent. I'd like to see these companies sued. It's the only thing that will make them think twice about doing this in the future. However, I don't think that suit can be won.

Agree on both posts. Seems like if a company was following Federal mandates and those were ultimately revoked, then the company would be protected from legal action. But I wonder if the Government itself can be sued for this via class action? Biden violated Federal law by mandating this for the Military. That has now been rescinded. Some kind of punishment needs to be levied. The last POTUS got reamed for a friggin phone call. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one at home.
"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption
Reply

#12

(12-06-2021, 08:30 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: So now what? 

People who were forced to get the jab against their will are going to opt out of the booster if their company policy changed during that time. Their plan to have corporations do their bidding was short sighted, overall ineffective,  and pissed off millions of people in the process.


(12-06-2021, 10:55 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Was it ineffective? I bet it increased vaccination rates by 10 to 20 percent. I'd like to see these companies sued. It's the only thing that will make them think twice about doing this in the future. However, I don't think that suit can be won.


(12-06-2021, 11:58 AM)NewJagsCity Wrote: Agree on both posts.  Seems like if a company was following Federal mandates and those were ultimately revoked, then the company would be protected from legal action.  But I wonder if the Government itself can be sued for this via class action?  Biden violated Federal law by mandating this for the Military.  That has now been rescinded.  Some kind of punishment needs to be levied.  The last POTUS got reamed for a friggin phone call.  But then again, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one at home.

It is legal for a company and State to require a vaccine that IS FDA approved. The government requiring it does not shield the company from enforcing the illegal mandate. The company has a responsibility to their employees, the employees do not work for the government. The company should be the ones suing the government, not their employees. Since the mandate was illegal and there is no FDA approved vaccine, anyone who sues should win whatever damages they have. Anyone who was forced to get it and can prove they were forced or lose their job, should also be able to sue but would be harder to prove they didn't willingly get the shot.

Companies would be sued under 2 things, EUA and denying exemptions.

The government and companies could be held responsible but that will take years for those trials to happen if they ever would.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!