Saturday, August 28, 2021

Bad Science Meets Bad Law: “Masks Must be Worn—for the Public Good”—Says Florida Court; Will Head to SCOTUS

By Grand Rapids Anonymous
Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:31:00 P.M. EDT

(ZH) It looks like another pandemic-related issue is headed to the Supreme Court, after a Florida judge struck down a ban on mask mandates issued by Governor Ron DeSantis, according to the associated press.

DeSantis “overstepped his authority” by issuing an executive order banning the mandates, according to Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper, ruling that the EO was unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.

The order, which gave parents the sole right to decide if their child will wear a mask at school, was deemed by Cooper to be “without legal authority.”

His decision came after a three-day virtual hearing, and after at least 10 Florida school boards voted to defy DeSantis and impose mask requirements with no parental opt-out.

Cooper said that while the governor and others have argued that a new Florida law gives parents the ultimate authority to oversee health issues for their children, it also exempts government actions that are needed to protect public health and are reasonable and limited in scope. He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.

[N.S.: But even the CDC has admitted that masks are worthless.]

The judge also noted that two Florida Supreme Court decisions from 1914 and 1939 found that individual rights are limited by their impact on the rights of others. For example, he said, adults have the right to drink alcohol but not to drive drunk. There is a right to free speech, but not to harass or threaten others or yell “fire” in a crowded theater, he said. -AP

[N.S.: Idiocy. Then there are no individual rights, because the exercise of every right impacts on other people.]

“We don’t have that right because exercising the right in that way is harmful or potentially harmful to other people,” said Cooper, adding that the law is “full of examples of rights that are limited (when) the good of others ... would be adversely affected by those rights.”

GRA: If that’s true, during the flu season—all these past many years—anyone going outside with the flu and passing it to someone, who then dies—should be liable in some way (not).

The flu has killed hundreds of thousands, since I’ve been on the planet, yet no one even SUGGESTED widespread mask wearing was the answer.

Now, all of a sudden—it is (not).


N.S.: Since when do judges get to decide the “public good”? Or school boards, for that matter?


Anonymous said...


GRA:What if you didn't get the first jabs--would I still need a booster?Lol.

(NY Post)
President Biden on Friday said he and Dr. Anthony Fauci discussed requiring COVID-19 booster shots every five months rather than every eight as previously anticipated.

The shorter timeframe would increase the number of vaccine doses that the US will need to set aside for booster shots — as poorer nations clamor for more US donations.

“The question raised is should it be shorter than eight months? Should it be as little as five months? That’s being discussed. I spoke with Dr. Fauci this morning about that,” Biden said in the Oval Office during a visit from Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.

Biden said Friday that booster shots for Americans “will start here on Sept. 20 pending approval of the FDA and the CDC committee of outside experts.”

The president did not say what Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease expert, recommended regarding booster shot timing.

Israel began giving booster shots to senior citizens last month — rejecting the World Health Organization’s plea for “a moratorium on boosters” so that the Third World can get vaccines and reduce the possibility of new and more contagious mutations.

Pfizer and BioNTech have requested FDA approval for a booster shot for their two-dose vaccine, which is the most widely used option in the US — saying data shows a third shot improves the body’s ability to fight the virus. Moderna’s similar two-dose vaccine was made with the same technology.

GRA:No thanks.



Anonymous said...

(NY Post)

The Rev. Jesse Jackson has been moved to a physical rehabilitation center, while his wife Jacqueline was transferred to the intensive care unit at the hospital where the two were undergoing treatment for COVID-19.

The 79-year-old political activist and minister and his 77-year-old wife were admitted to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago last weekend.

Family members said in a statement Friday that Jacqueline Jackson was moved to the ICU and was receiving oxygen, but breathing on her own.
(GRA:Doesn't sound like for long.)

GRA:Jackson reportedly yelled to his wife(quoting Arnold Schwarzenegger from "Total Recall")"Consider this a divorce,"as he played grabass with a black nurse,while watching Mrs.Jackson get hauled away.


Anonymous said...

Even if does no good we must do it. Or else.

Anonymous said...


(ZH)A few weeks ago, we shared the story of a 21-year-old man from Ohio who, after being arrested for fentanyl possession, was legally required by the judge overseeing his case to get vaccinated as a condition of his probation.

Now, in a terrifying glimpse of what might be in store for parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids, a judge in Cook County Illinois (which includes Chicago and some of the surrounding area) has taken away the parental rights of a woman due to her refusal to get vaccinated.

In what all parties agree is a very unusual and perhaps unprecedented step, a judge at Chicago's Daley Center has stripped Rebecca Firlit of custody due to her refusal to get vaccinated.

"I miss my son more than anything. It's been very difficult. I haven't seen him since Aug. 10," Firlit told a local Fox affiliate station in an interview.

That’s the day Firlit appeared in court via Zoom, accompanied by her ex-husband, for a child support hearing involving her 11-year-old son. The two have been divorced for seven years and share custody and parenting time. Out of the blue, Cook County Judge James Shapiro asked her whether she had been vaccinated. Firlit told Shapiro she didn't get vaccinated because she has had bad reactions to vaccines in the past.

Shapiro then ordered that Firlit be prevented from spending parenting time with her son until she gets vaccinated. Over the past two weeks, Firlit has been able to talk to her son on the phone and through video calls, but has been unable to see him in person.

"I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families. And I think it’s not in my son's best interest to be away from his mother," Firlit said.

Firlit is now appealing the court order, saying the judge has no authority to take away her parenting rights over her vaccination status.

"It had nothing to do with what we were talking about. He was placing his views on me. And taking my son away from me," Firlit said.

Her attorney, Annette Fernholz, claimed the judge has overstepped his authority.

"In this case you have a judge, without any matter before him regarding the parenting time with the child deciding 'Oh, you’re not vaccinated. You don't get to see your child until you are vaccinated.' That kind of exceeds his jurisdiction," Fernholz said.

As she explained, the judge is acting completely on his own: Firlit's former husband didn't bring the issue before the court.

"You have to understand the father did not even bring this issue before the court. So it’s the judge on his own and making this decision that you can’t see your child until you’re vaccinated," Fernholz added.

However, the attorney representing Firlit's ex-husband, Jeffrey Leving, says they were also surprised by the judge's decision, but they support the ruling saying that given the pandemic, the child should be protected from an unvaccinated mother.

GRA:This is behavior control--judicial totalitarianism--and must be met with huge crowds protesting.I can't express my hatred of that ruling enough without resorting to language and attitude that should not be written down--so I'll end my comment there.