Corn Pop
Member
But it wasn't about "power" at all, was it?
More importantly, not for the Supreme Court. By editing the statement and adding "power", it was made to appear that the Court ordered something it did not. The unedited version:
“As the Supreme Court made clear in a 1905 decision, the liberty we enjoy in this country does not give us the right to act to the detriment of others in all circumstances,” Beyrer and Corey wrote. “One of those circumstances is when personal decisions threaten the health and well-being of others. COVID-19, like smallpox, is colorless, invisible, and even more contagious. Talking, eating, singing, and shouting are major modes of transmission; one cannot identify who is infected, and one cannot discern who to avoid.
“What is needed for control,” they added, “is essentially universal vaccination and masking, and even then, the results will not likely provide complete eradication. But our society and economy will be able to fully recover.”
Did you really think we wouldn't read it for ourselves?
When personal decisions threaten the health and well-being being of others?.
Someone has to acturaly be a threat first. A possible, maybe, could be is no proof or evidence someone is a threat, unless everyone wants to assume everyone is a threat because everyone talks and breathes oxygen.
Evidence or proof someone is a threat or could put others at risk. As in a positive covid test people where people had to stay home and isolate.
If someone wants to say I am a threat I am more than happy to take a test and show them the result and then ask for an apology for calling me a threat if it comes back negative.
Apparently there is a jab that protects people so everyone who has it should feel safe.
And unless the vaccine is immunity and there is no way someone vaccinated can get and pass on the virus who is anyone to call anyone else a threat.