The Supreme Court is declining to wade into a lawsuit filed by four New York City public school employees over a policy that they be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Lower courts had previously allowed the policy to go into effect while litigation continued, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor had also rejected an emergency request that the policy be put on hold. The justices said Monday they wouldn’t get involved in the dispute. As is typical the justices did not say anything in rejecting the case, and it was one of more than 100 the court turned away.
New York City began requiring public school employees to be vaccinated in the fall of 2021. Courts had declined to bar the city from enforcing their policy, which applies to some 150,000 employees and has religious and medical exemptions.
Three of the teachers involved in the case have been fired and a fourth has taken extended leave.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
The c19 shot is actually not legal for several reasons and these judges who now had an opportunity to hear this case and straighten the law, probably have ‘vaccine injuries’ – else they are just not fit to be secular judges in a democratic republic.
First of all, the c19, as any medical procedure must, according to the Nuremberg Laws (common sense wasn’t enough before this), allow ‘informed consent’ (casually known today as: ‘my body, my choice’). The US Supreme Court actually set a precedent back in ‘1904 in Jacobsen vs. Massachusetts against a broad interpretation by health authorities for regulations regarding quarantine or ‘vaccination’ (paraphrased because ‘vaccinology’ is a theory – protested by many medical professionals for close to 300 years).
Secondly, the c19 ‘vaccine’ was only approved under an experimental-use, EUA (emergency use authorization) with no legal recourse offered to any who took this shot and suffered in any way because of it. Aside from this never having been ever done before (it was mostly effected by ‘big pharma’ funding of politicians enacting such laws in the opinion of many), once the Pfizer/BioNtech’s ‘Comernity’ product was somehow given approval, the EUA was no longer legitimate. Yet, though this formula is apparently the same one used here in the US, it is marketed ‘off-label’ – not as ‘Comernity’, which continues to allow big pharma to escape law suits for adverse effects – this is illegal according to the terms of the EUA laws, and these ‘judges’ as so many corrupt others are blinded from thinking clearly about these matters.
Just as long as every melamed is learnéd enough at least to cite the Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeach uShmiras Nefesh, perek 12, halachah 9 to get a “religious exemption” (the exemption being that the legal system of the nation of Yisroel, unlike their legal system, recognizes how dangerous their meds can be). The Bavli (Avodah Zarah 27a) for good reason brings that “Rav Yehuda says even with regard to the wound of a bloodletting incision we are not permitted to be treated by foreigners”. Bloodletting assumedly was regarded as a somewhat safe medical treatment in Bavel (hence the word “even”). So, if we should not let them bloodlet us, all the more so we should not let them experimentally yet permanently hack our genes with the corpse of a murdered unborn bastard (aborted fetus)… Just sayin…