My very basic understanding of the US Supreme Court is that today its primary function is to rule on wether or not laws are constitutional. But if I understand it correctly, Marbury v. Madison (1803) marks the first time the court ruled that a law established by Congress was unconstitutional. So what were they even doing before that landmark case?
Title.
In rejecting OSHA's mandate the Court claimed Congress never gave OSHA the authority to require employee vaccination, which was formerly defined by Merriam-Webster as:
- any preparation of weakened or killed bacteria or viruses introduced into the body to prevent a disease by stimulating antibodies against it.
- the virus of cowpox, used in vaccination, obtained from pox vesicles of a cow or person.
However, what was presented to the Court was never considered a vaccine according to the former definition.
The current definition of a vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, is:
a preparation that is administered (as by injection) to stimulate the body's immune response against a specific infectious disease:
a : an antigenic preparation of a typically inactivated or attenuated (see attenuated sense 2) pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus) or one of its components or products (such as a protein or toxin)
b : a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)
Moreover, Congress never had the opportunity to give OSHA the authority to mandate as a vaccine the specific medical procedure currently defined as a vaccine. It couldn't have if it had wanted to because what was under consideration by the Court as a vaccine was never a vaccine when Congress gave authority to OSHA. The Court constructed and ruled on a straw man argument, which has certified a form of gene therapy to be a vaccine. The Court ruled on OSHA's authority, but not on OSHA's inability to mandate gene therapy because of any action by Congress.
The Court should have ruled that Congress never considered giving OSHA the authority to mandate the medical procedure currently defined as a vaccine. And since it never gave it consideration it couldn't have granted the authority to mandate it. In this way the Supreme Court would never have certified gene therapy as a vaccine.
In a subsequent ruling, the Court, without any congressional authority, defacto passed a law allowing medical institutions receiving federal funds to impose gene therapy mandates on their employees. Why has the Court allowed itself to be manipulated by Merriam-Webster's changing definitions? Or was it all planned that way?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 56%. (I'm a bot)
> WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will learn Monday whether he can appeal to Britain's Supreme Court against a High Court ruling that he may be extradited to the United States.
> The High Court on December 10 reversed an earlier judgement by a British magistrates' court that it would be "Oppressive" to extradite the 50-year-old Australian to the US justice system because of his mental health and the risk of suicide.
> The court will now decide whether to permit Assange, who is facing 18 charges relating to the release of 500,000 secret US files, to appeal that decision to the UK Supreme Court on "Points of law of general public importance".
> Washington wants Assange to face trial for WikiLeaks' publication in 2010 of classified military documents relating to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> If Assange loses on Monday, the case will be returned to Westminster Magistrates' Court with the direction that it be sent to interior minister Priti Patel for the final say.
> "Locking up Julian Assange for exposing the truth about US wars is an insult to all those struggling for peace and human rights."
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Court^#1 Assange^#2 case^#3 London^#4 appeal^#5
Post found in /r/worldnews, /r/conspiracywhatever, /r/AutoNewspaper and /r/FRANCE24auto.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the [aut
... keep reading on reddit ➡https://preview.redd.it/1nm4limyjn881.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=10ef97fbcfc2e742c20830f7d1645fbb81607bb8
In 1921 OTL, William Howard Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court by Warren Harding. However, it seems unlikely that William Gibbs McAdoo would appoint the man his father-in-law unseated to become President to be the most important judge in America. So, who do you think McAdoo appointed to replace Edward Douglass White as Chief Justice?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-6883/73736/20181203101841230_00000019.pdf
