Military Veterans and Patriots

Tag: court rulings

  • Malarkey – Masklarkey

    Malarkey – Masklarkey

    For those who may be unaware, the Biden administration* has elected to appeal Judge Misselle’s vacating of the mask mandate.

    Marxist Masklarkey

    Control — I Like To Have A Lot
    Spencer Brown: “Psaki admits that the Biden administration’s decision to appeal the CDC mask mandate ruling from a federal judge is to ‘preserve that authority for the CDC to have in the future’ — that is, it’s not about science, it’s about protecting power.”

    Jon Nicosia: “They can’t let power slip away without a fight.”

    Daily Malarkey throwback: “Masks are their red hats — and they can own youby forcing you to don them. They won’t let go so easily.”

    Nick Adams: “Democrats don’t love masks, they love control.”

    Daniel Kotzin: “Wearing a mask was never a sign of respect for others. It was always a mark of obedience to authority.”​

    Don Jr.: “The democrats can’t let go of the stranglehold they had on you and all aspects of your lives. It’s not about science it’s about control and they ain’t giving it up if they don’t have to.”

    Lisa Boothe: “It’s fun watching the Left meltdown because they are losing the ability to controlour lives. Freedom is a beautiful thing 🇺🇸”

    Oppressors Again Play Oppressed
    Epic Federalist headline: “Mask NazisWho Terrorized Americans For Years Are Worried They Might Get Mocked For Mask Obsession”

    Wishful Thinking Again Trumps Common Sense
    Karlyn Borysenko: “This dude @JradRabel tweeted a satire post about flight attendants yelling ‘this is MAGA airspace’ after ripping their masks off…and a New York Times reporter took it seriously and asked him for comment. What a time to be alive.”

    Andy Ngo: “‘A Jussie Smollet-inspired satire tweet by @JradRabel about flight attendants sneezing into their hands was followed-up upon by a New York Times reporter” 

    Blaze: “‘Got a NYT journalist caught in my satire’: NYT correspondent asks to interview man who tweeted that flight attendants removed their face masks and shouted ‘this is MAGA airspace’”

    Mia Cathell: “‘Unfortunately it’s satire that only someone at the NYT would believe,’ the prankster told the NYT journalist when asked for comment.”

  • 6th Circuit Delivers…

    6th Circuit Delivers…

    6th Circuit Delivers Another Body Blow to Biden’s OSHA Vax Mandate

    There have been a multitude of lawsuits over the vaccine mandate. By lottery selection,     the Sixth Circuit Court was chosen to handle the  a consolidated case on the OSHA mandate. 

    The government filed suit to have the case moved. The reason for such a suit is because  the Sixth Circuit is seated in Cincinnati and serves four states square in the American heartland (Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky). Justices nominated by Republican presidents outnumber Democrat nominees 10–6. 

    Basically, the government wanted to court shop to find a court they felt would be more amenable to their illegal vaccine mandate. 

    Yet again, the Xiden administration lost their request. 

    On November 3, the court responded:

    The Court hereby DENIES the motions to transfer the matter to the Fifth Circuit (Dkt. 95) and the D.C. Circuit (Dkt. 213).

    Further, the Court stated:

    Given the Governments pending motion, the motions to stay the agency’s ruling and related motions … are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

    So far, the courts have prevented the Xiden administration in imposing the illegal mandate. 

  • Big Doings in The Texas Courts

    Big Doings in The Texas Courts

    Texas Supreme Court Building

    There were a couple of big decisions out of the Texas Supreme court the past couple of days.

    First up is a case involving Facebook and sex trafficking. The Court ruled that section 320 of the communications decency act did not provide Facebook immunity from being sued by victims of sex trafficking when the abusers use that site.

    The majority wrote, “We do not understand Section 230 to ‘create a lawless no-man’s-land on the Internet’ in which states are powerless to impose liability on websites that knowingly or intentionally participate in the evil of online human trafficking. . . Holding internet platforms accountable for the words or actions of their users is one thing, and the federal precedent uniformly dictates that Section 230 does not allow it,” the opinion said. “Holding internet platforms accountable for their own misdeeds is quite another thing. This is particularly the case for human trafficking.”

    This ruling allows several civil suits from victims to go forward. Annie McAdams, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said it was a groundbreaking decision. This is the first case to beat Facebook on its argument that it had immunity under Section 230, she said. “While we have a long road ahead, we are grateful that the Texas Supreme Court will allow these courageous trafficking survivors to have their day in court against Facebook,” McAdams said. She said with the help of an anti-trafficking provision under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code called Chapter 98, “We believe trafficking survivors in Texas can expose and hold accountable businesses such as Facebook that benefit from these crimes of exploitation.”

    The other big case out of Texas is in regards to firearms retailers responsibility in selling firearms that are later used in crimes. The case in question involved Academy Sports and the families of those killed in the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs shooting. The families sued believing the retailer was responsible for the gunman aquiring the weapon used in the shooting. Despite getting a bad conduct discharge from the USAF for spousal abuse, the shooter passed a federally mandated and administered background check.

    “Although federal law disqualified Kelley from purchasing a firearm at the time of the sale — based in part on his conviction in a 2012 court-martial for assaulting his wife and stepson and his dishonorable discharge from the United States Air Force — that disqualifying information was not in the system, which authorized Academy to ‘Proceed’ with the sale,” the court found.

    This one hits close to home for this editor, as he works in the firearms industry. While we can refuse a sale for any reason, and this Editor has on several occasions, most gun salespeople rely on the results of the NICS background check. In the case out of Texas, the Air Force, who is being sued for it, failed to forward the information that would have disqualified the shooter. Had he presented normally, and not set off any alarm bells, this editor would have allowed the sale to proceed as normal, and barring a delay or deny from NICS, sold the firearm.