Page 2 of 2

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 7:58 am
by octool
LawAdvocate wrote:Are you sure you are in the legal professsion?

Read Jacobson v. Massachutsetts and Zucht v. King. It is constitutional to mandate a vaccination.

You had a vaccine "passport" when you went to school in the US and yes, the vaccinations were mandatory. You have a driving "passport."

You have to wear a seat belt and you can't drive drunk either and you have to show your age "passport"

Did you go to law school or skip Con Law? Your personal rights end when others rights start. In the case of public health, you do not have the right to walk around infecting the public. See the law surrounding typhoid Mary who refused to wash her hands.

Yes, I expect people who are in the law to follow the valid facts and evidence when making decisions. I expect you to even stand up and educate your clients to do the same so they don't endanger others, including work comp physicians. There is zero evidence against the vaccine. The only time it is not recommended is if you are in an age group that has not yet secured approval or if you had a severe allergic reaction to the first vaccine, like anaphylactic shock, not a mere rash or itching.

You don't deserve the privilege to engage in any aspect of the legal profession if you fall for fake news sources and you won't even step up and protect the people around you.

You are clearly emotional about this issue and have resorted to ad hominem attacks. Yes I am a legal professional. I was not making an anti-vaccine argument. You just went there because you are in your feelings. When you are able to have a civil debate like an educated professional, we can discuss this further.

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:40 pm
by LawAdvocate
LOL. Those aren't my feelings, but you keep trying. You obviously aren't a litigator either if you think any of that was "feelings" and if you thought those were ad hominin attacks, I can't help you.

Those are the facts and if you are anti-vax for any reason, which you appear to be, there is nothing left to discuss.

You don't know the law, you don't know the science and the arguments your raised against the vaccine are intellectually disingenuous. Poor lawyers having to sub out because they refuse to follow the evidence of top scientists, cry me a river, I will drink the tears.

Re: In Person Hearings 10/1/21 (California) (California) (Califo

PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:44 pm
by LawAdvocate
You miss my point. I can understand I need a vaccine. But I am not qualified to overrule those with degrees in public health that set public health policy. If they say masks are needed I have no standing to overrule them. I believe Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a decision last year the Courts were not in a position to overrule County public health authorities.

I didn't miss the point, it was written without specificity as to what you were referring.