-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
Jake Dickert - HC Wazzu
- Thread starter OrediggerPoke
- Start date
LanderPoke
Well-known member
laxwyo said:
Everyone cites Jacobson vs Massachusetts (1905) as their awful, nonsensical precedent for vaccine mandates. Maybe it's time to rethink that archaic ruling. Look at other Supreme Court cases from that era. It's a parade of disgusting stupidity and brutality:
Buck vs Bell (1927) The state can forcibly sterilize mental institution patients
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Racial segregation is OK
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) Child labor in mines and heavy industry is OK
Schenck v. United States (1919) "clear and present danger" to determine if one's free speech can be taken away
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) The court invalidated minimum wage for women in the District of Columbia
Lots of the same judges that made these decision were in on the Jacobson v Mass crap show.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
Did you read the attorneys' statement discussing the allegations against the AD? yes, they are pretty wild IMO.laxwyo said:
And no and while I absolutely believe in personal liberties and property rights that shall not be taken nor infringed without due process of law , I don't share your belief as to the likelihood of success on appeal based on prior precedent. There is one critical distinction he has going for him, Washington State is an arm of the state (i.e. governmental action) versus a private employer.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
OrediggerPoke said:
It will be interesting to see these cases working through court. I think the "wild allegations" is just lawyer talk setting the stage. The government has not fully defined what constitutes a "religious exemption" nor do they outline specific criteria to meet that. Simply having a few people try to interpret the loophole in the mandate is likely not sufficient.
I don't think rejecting religious exemptions will stand in court because there is no clear cut criteria to do so. Not only that, they are relying on non-legal, non-elected/appointed individuals to determine what the legal exemption allows or does not allow. Lots of holes in the overall approach to that.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
ragtimejoe1 said:
That's the problem I have with this 'lawyer talk'. They are playing the media game rather than just filing a complaint in court setting forth the legal bases for the unlawful termination. It gives the legal industry a poor reputation.
Personally without knowing more or doing any substantive research, I believe his best avenue for an unlawful termination claim is "lack of due process" rather than anything to do with the vaccine or religious exemptions themselves. I could see cognizable claims that Washington State had failed to adequately provide a process for folks claiming a religious exemption or that Washington State treated Rolo's religious exemption claim differently than other employees (if they can prove different treatment that is almost always a due process win).
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
OrediggerPoke said:
I'm no lawyer for sure but agree and kind of what I was getting at. The state of Washington allowed for religious exemptions but every state body had different methods to evaluate and determine validity of a religious exemption. What qualified for one state body may not have qualified at others and there is no way to prove consistency across the board. I imagine FOI will reveal very loose interpretations and enforcement. With that approach, I don't think the state wins this one. It might cost them A LOT of money. I hope so.
laxwyo
Well-known member
ragtimejoe1 said:
You guys seem to know a lot more about the law. Regardless, I hope he wins. I always wondered, do you have to prove how devout you are in order to get exemptions? It seems like anyone’s personal convictions could be almost religious.
Project Veritas dug up some emails from Pfizer about how they wanted to keep the fetal tissue usage on the DL because they knew it’d be used for exemptions.
laxwyo said:
I agree that we are in the midst of a fairly ugly shift in our country. I share your concerns about government overreach, including the Stasi-like state that has been created in Texas where we pay neighbors to spy on and tattle-tale to the government on their neighbors over abortion. Same with some of the vaccine and mask weirdness. I am generally uneasy right now and, at the root of it, is the reality that we cannot agree on what are and are not basic facts (no matter whether you lean red, blue, purple or white) and we focus on what pulls us apart and not on what we need to do to make our communities, state and country the envy of the world again.
WyoVaquero
Well-known member
I hope he wins as well.
A problem with Lander pokes'analysis is that 1905 was a time that the court took a very hands off approach in that individuals, especially rich white folk, were allowed carte Blanche to do as they pleased. Big business ruled. The feds were not allowed to do much that interfered with states or private business. It was ok for state/local cops to horsewhip black suspects (Brown v mississippi) until 1936. No federal requirement for a compent atty for indigent defendants in state courts until the 1960's. No due process or equal protection rights under the US constitution in state courts until mapp in the 50's. No workers comp until? scotus was so anti-government (I.e. FDR) that court packing was a serious discussion in the 30's.
Yet one aspect of federal mass medical care was authorized in 1905. I think it's a legit argument as to whether our pandemic is as severe as the disease then, such that our mandate is overreach, but the cases cited are inapposite and do not support the proposition.
Rolo's religious exemption was apparently granted. The AD apparently retained the right to determine if coach could do his job, despite the exemption and without the jab. And, the AD decided the job could not be performed without a jab. I think this would provide a cause of action, but it may or may not be successful. Additionally, per the rumour mill there are other reasons supporting Rolo's claim, but I have even less basis to go there in this forum, other than 1. I'm not an employment lawyer, 2. I've slept in a Holiday Inn, 3. To the extent there's truth to the rumors, Rolo may have enough of an argument with these claims to get to a jury.
Yet one aspect of federal mass medical care was authorized in 1905. I think it's a legit argument as to whether our pandemic is as severe as the disease then, such that our mandate is overreach, but the cases cited are inapposite and do not support the proposition.
Rolo's religious exemption was apparently granted. The AD apparently retained the right to determine if coach could do his job, despite the exemption and without the jab. And, the AD decided the job could not be performed without a jab. I think this would provide a cause of action, but it may or may not be successful. Additionally, per the rumour mill there are other reasons supporting Rolo's claim, but I have even less basis to go there in this forum, other than 1. I'm not an employment lawyer, 2. I've slept in a Holiday Inn, 3. To the extent there's truth to the rumors, Rolo may have enough of an argument with these claims to get to a jury.
bladerunnr
Well-known member
LawPoke said:
Funny how you zero in on the Texas abortion law, which affects very few people. But I guess all the dictator like business closings and mask mandates don't seem to register on your radar. The vast majority of people in this country under 60 experience only flu like symptoms from covid. But listening to the left, we are all at risk of dying, which is an outright lie. I got sick as hell from my second covid shot and will not get another. And no, we can't agree on facts when one side says there are multiple genders and it's ok for a guy to use the women's bathroom. That's the party of science, I guess.
bladerunnr said:
First, the TX abortion law affects a lot of women - and when it is replicated in every other foaming at the mouth red state, it will affect a whole lot more. But beyond that, the law itself is disgusting where we pay people to spy on each other. Read up on the Stasi and what it did and how it worked and how effective it was in East Germany and tell me that mask mandates are the thing we should fear.
Second, I know people that have died from COVID, leaving young kids, grandkids and others behind. I know people that have been out of the office for more than 2 weeks because they were flat on their butts sick. It killed productivity in my office for a month, costing us thousands. From there, I know multiple people that got sick from those same people that debilitated multiple other workplaces. And the Rolovich thing is a bit nuanced, because a COVID breakout on the WSU team costs WSU TV money and potentially a shot at a bowl and gameday revenue. I think it is smart insurance to say that the team and coaches should be vaccinated because millions of dollars are potentially at stake if they have to forfeit games due to COVID. Now to Biden's "mandate" - it hasn't been released yet, but will likely say that you either (1) get vaxxed; OR (2) you get tested regularly. Hardly a mandate if you can opt for another path. And if a business wants to mandate it, it's their choice. I remember a day when the GOP believed in free enterprise and the invisible hand of the market. Even so, I actually agree that government shouldn't say either way: they should let the individual business decide what it wants to do to mitigate business risk.
Third, the left and the woke BS infuriates me as much as it does you. I don't want my kids to have to feel guilty for being born white and male. I don't understand gender and identity BS. I just don't. But the right has its own demons to deal with too in the honesty and fact department. Trump lied like it was his job. Privately, GOP operatives and even his staffers acknowledged it. Those lies have cost us dearly. MSNBC, FOX, OAN, CNN - they are all political arms of the parties at this point as far as I am concerned. And today, any schmo with a bent can post anything they want and have their stupid conspiracy nonsense spewed to the ends of the earth with no repercussions or journalistic rigor. Social media and the rise of news that is really political advocacy will end our democracy.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
LawPoke said:
Did you read the Washington mandate? There was no testing option.
ragtimejoe1 said:
No, I didn't read the Washington mandate. I do think that a mandate makes sense for college football when millions are at stake if you even are forced to miss one game due to COVID. To me, WSU would be crazy not to impose a very strict mandate - solely because of the money they lose if they can't field a team on any given Saturday.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
Even being forced to test, when healthy, is onerous and intrusive and a violation of personal rights and freedoms.
McPeachy
Well-known member
LanderPoke said:
Libtards have to push their agenda...test everyone, sick or not, and inflate the shit out of the "numbers" to put people into panic / quarantine. Then they will have to rely on unemployment $$$$ and government $$$$. Get 'em hooked on big government, and you own 'em.
WestWYOPoke
Well-known member
States' rights... right?ragtimejoe1 said:
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
WestWYOPoke said:
Sure, as I stated above. Just like TX and their abortion bill
