To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

[jono]

That's not correct. The original decision has no bearing on the result of the second hearing. A judge can rule one way on the first hearing, and then rule a different way on the second hearing, and they are not reversing themselves. The original order automatically expired. There is no dismissing, there is no reversing. Same for protection order cases I described above.

I get it that it is easier for the media to just say Judge Oster "reversed" Judge Howard rather than explain the exact procedural history. But the procedural history is important here so Americans have a more accurate view of how their legal system operates. Both Judge Howard and Judge Oster and basically every other attorney would agree with me here.

I get that you're interested in the details, but as a layperson I understand that if a court makes a preliminary decision and later reverses it that's still called a reversal and the term is not restricted to appeals. Is that incorrect?

Does seem kinda weird to be more concerned about the semantic description than the actual impact of each ruling: drug administered/drug stopped.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

oh fuck off. The judicial system doesn’t want to explain itself to the people who pay their bills. Yeah, it’s all a conspiracy

And fyi, often editors do that shit, not the reporter.

You and altaslob should get a room and sort this out.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TBS]

[SumJongGuy]

LEECHES!!!!!!!! I DEMAND LEECHES!!!!!!

[KQ]

LEECHES!!!!!!!! I DEMAND LEECHES!!!!!!

Better yet how about mercury?

[Buster Highmen]

LEECHES!!!!!!!! I DEMAND LEECHES!!!!!!

Well, we do have Wall Street.

[dunfree]

You and altaslob should get a room and sort this out.

[old goat]

The reasoning given for the first judge's ordering the hospital to give Ivermectin is the same bad reasoning a majority of the SCOTUS used to allow the Texas abortion law to stand--using strict adherence to the technicalities of the law without regard to the outcome. Such reasoning breeds contempt for the law and the court.

Judge Howard ordered the hospital to give the drug. I haven't seen his order so maybe he addressed this issue but hospitals cannot prescribe or administer drugs; doctors on staff of a hospital prescribe drugs and nurses administer them. Both doctors and nurses are licensed practitioners subject to professional discipline for violating the standard of care. Can the court order individual doctors and nurses to provide certain care. Apparently in this case the hospital must have found a doctor and a nurse willing to give the Ivermectin. I certainly would have refused.

The correct ruling in the first hearing would have been for Judge Howard to deny the injunction on the grounds that the court has no business determining the standard of medical care or telling doctors and nurses how to practice medicine. No presentation of evidence by the hospital would have been necessary for the judge to have ruled this way. (This is different than the situation where a court orders a transfusion for a minor child of Jehovah's Witnesses; in this case the court is not ruling on the standard of care but on the right of parents to withhold live saving care from their minor child.)

We have reached a point where every dispute is ultimately settled in court. I do not believe that the rule of law requires this, I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution intended this, and I believe that justice and the rule of law would best be served if judges more often demurred in situations in which they have no proper role to play. In Bush v Gore the SCOTUS intervened in a case in which it had no jurisdiction; the matter was properly before the Florida Supreme Court and used tortured reasoning to deny a recount that almost certainly would have made Gore President.. In 2020 the Court stayed out of the election, to its credit. Would that Judge Howard had exercised the same restraint.

[KQ]

I knew it wouldn't go well when I mentioned to my anti-vaxxer friend that I believed my 90yo mother survived Covid with little more than flu like symptoms because she was vaxxed. Sure enough she claims to have lost 4 family members (one just the other day!) to "the shot" because this vax is not like any other.

There is nothing to say to her so I won't try. She even sent me a graph showing 16K deaths from the vax so far this year.

[Mazderati]

I can think of a few things to say.

[MultiVerse]

We have reached a point where every dispute is ultimately settled in court. I do not believe that the rule of law requires this,

The second judge addressed this issue too, writing the plaintiff could have switched hospitals without involving the court:

However, Dr. Wagshul prescribed the medication without having seen Jeff Smith and does not have privileges at West Chester Hospital.

What is more, based upon the testimony, Jeff Smith is capable of being safely and medically appropriately moved to a hospital where Dr. Wagshul has privileges. If continued use of ivermectin under Dr. Wagshul's treatment regimen is desired, Plaintiff has this as an available option without the need of intervention by a court.

[KQ]

Can I just say how much I hate the way things have become among people? Seems like no one believes anything anymore or believes whatever they dream up and everyone is angry. Myself included.

[SumJongGuy]

Can I just say how much I hate the way things have become among people? Seems like no one believes anything anymore or believes whatever they dream up and everyone is angry. Myself included.

Little did we know God is technology seeing and recording everything everyone does and carrying out me too types of justice and reckoning. Satan is the internet and technology luring unsuspecting naive people in to doing dumb and sometimes evil things...

[PNWbrit]

Little did we know God is technology seeing and recording everything everyone does and carrying out me too types of justice and reckoning. Satan is the internet and technology luring unsuspecting naive people in to doing dumb and sometimes evil things...

Which god in particular?

A bet all the other gods will be pissed!

[KQ]

Little did we know God is technology seeing and recording everything everyone does and carrying out me too types of justice and reckoning. Satan is the internet and technology luring unsuspecting naive people in to doing dumb and sometimes evil things...

The internet had def. been a double edged sword and I'd like to amend my statement by saying I'm more sad than angry. Such troubling times for which I see very little light anymore.

[TBS]

Can I just say how much I hate the way things have become among people? Seems like no one believes anything anymore or believes whatever they dream up and everyone is angry. Myself included.

I feel the same way sometimes

Then I realize the dissonance is coming from a small but very vocal minority. And that dissonance is being fed by an even smaller group of people using this group for financial gain. And it’s amplified by the press for financial gain as well.

[riser4]

Follow the money.

[SumJongGuy]

I feel the same way sometimes

Then I realize the dissonance is coming from a small but very vocal minority. And that dissonance is being fed by an even smaller group of people using this group for financial gain. And it’s amplified by the press for financial gain as well.

It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't also extremely heavily armed. That's why they're so bold now. The guns give them courage to act like assholes everywhere to everyone..

[KQ]

Does anyone else find themselves asking what is reality anymore?

[jono]

Does anyone else find themselves asking what is reality anymore?

No. But within the asylum sanity is turning out to be very cold comfort.

[DougW]

If any body wants to look at this
https://www.eastonspectator.com/2021...-md-mph-frcpc/
its long but it does seem contain some valid points though at some parts it really doesn't seem written by a MD ? To technical for me by far

[Skidog]

The reasoning given for the first judge's ordering the hospital to give Ivermectin is the same bad reasoning a majority of the SCOTUS used to allow the Texas abortion law to stand--using strict adherence to the technicalities of the law without regard to the outcome. Such reasoning breeds contempt for the law and the court.

Judge Howard ordered the hospital to give the drug. I haven't seen his order so maybe he addressed this issue but hospitals cannot prescribe or administer drugs; doctors on staff of a hospital prescribe drugs and nurses administer them. Both doctors and nurses are licensed practitioners subject to professional discipline for violating the standard of care. Can the court order individual doctors and nurses to provide certain care. Apparently in this case the hospital must have found a doctor and a nurse willing to give the Ivermectin. I certainly would have refused.

The correct ruling in the first hearing would have been for Judge Howard to deny the injunction on the grounds that the court has no business determining the standard of medical care or telling doctors and nurses how to practice medicine. No presentation of evidence by the hospital would have been necessary for the judge to have ruled this way. (This is different than the situation where a court orders a transfusion for a minor child of Jehovah's Witnesses; in this case the court is not ruling on the standard of care but on the right of parents to withhold live saving care from their minor child.)

We have reached a point where every dispute is ultimately settled in court. I do not believe that the rule of law requires this, I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution intended this, and I believe that justice and the rule of law would best be served if judges more often demurred in situations in which they have no proper role to play. In Bush v Gore the SCOTUS intervened in a case in which it had no jurisdiction; the matter was properly before the Florida Supreme Court and used tortured reasoning to deny a recount that almost certainly would have made Gore President.. In 2020 the Court stayed out of the election, to its credit. Would that Judge Howard had exercised the same restraint.

Tons of opinion in this post.

You can play the "technical law" card, but that's why lawyers exist. Want the "technicality" removed? Change the rules. Not so easy, but that's reality.

We may disagree with various outcomes, but law is law.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using TGR Forums mobile app

[Skidog]

The internet had def. been a double edged sword and I'd like to amend my statement by saying I'm more sad than angry. Such troubling times for which I see very little light anymore.

We don't agree on a lot, but I'm beginning to think the internet is the end of man.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using TGR Forums mobile app

[MagnificentUnicorn]

We don't agree on a lot, but I'm beginning to think the internet is the end of man.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using TGR Forums mobile app

Wow, we agree


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[TBS]

Does anyone else find themselves asking what is reality anymore?

No problem with assessing reality - I can deal with math and science.

Human behavior is a different story - I spend a lot of time asking “Where the fuck did people come up with THAT?”

That may be because, as someone once told me, my thinking is bounded by rationality…