Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salt Lake Tribune)   Mike Lee (R-eally wants you to die) goes all in against vaccine mandates. Introduces 9 anti-vaccine mandate bills   (sltrib.com) divider line
    More: Sick, F4E2, Joe Biden, F6A8, Vaccine, F633, F440, F91D Millcreek leaders, Dick Cheney  
•       •       •

1307 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2021 at 5:38 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



30 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-09-27 1:48:32 PM  
Wow, what an asshole!
 
2021-09-27 2:08:34 PM  
Grandstanding. None of these should even make it out of committee.
 
2021-09-27 4:06:46 PM  
Amend them and make them all only applicable to Utah (or Utah national guard, as applicable). Bonus lulz if you offer to ban masks for them.

farker will flip flop so fast he'll break the sound barrier.
 
2021-09-27 5:45:21 PM  
We sure his maiden name isn't Hunt?
 
2021-09-27 5:49:49 PM  
It's bad enough that the rank and file are butt-huffing horsepaste, but then we have this shiatheel setting himself up as a Plague Lord, trying to make sure the plague spreads as far and wide as possible.

This is why I don't consider right wingers people.
 
2021-09-27 5:52:31 PM  
another "my body my choice when it affects me personally" anti-women's rights Republican pig whore.
 
2021-09-27 5:56:54 PM  
He's appealing to the covidiots to grift money from them fully knowing none of these bills will ever get a vote. If Schumer had any kind of balls he would let them out of committe and force the Republicans to filibuster their own bills.
 
2021-09-27 5:57:30 PM  
If Mike Lee really believes in the fundamental principles of these bills, I expect he would also introduce bills to:

- Prohibit businesses from requiring shirts and/or shoes, in the manner that they're currently requiring masks.

- Prohibit schools from requiring MMR vaccines for students.

- Prohibit mandatory vaccines of ANY SORT for the military (why just single out COVID-19?)

- Prohibit businesses from instituting ANY discretionary policy at all regarding customer behavior, and require that businesses all dever to the state government for such matters.  Small government, and all.

If he were a logically consistent thinker, he'd have no trouble doing these things in a heartbeat.

I won't hold my breath.
 
2021-09-27 5:58:33 PM  

pueblonative: We sure his maiden name isn't Hunt?


Your what?
 
2021-09-27 6:01:01 PM  

pueblonative: We sure his maiden name isn't Hunt?


Pretty sure his last name is Oxsmall.
 
2021-09-27 6:01:06 PM  
What the fark is the deal with people who won't wear a mask or won't get a free vaccine? I really don't understand this.

/has a couple really cool Star Wars masks
//would wear boring hospital ones if necessary
 
2021-09-27 6:02:59 PM  
After Biden announced his plan for mandates, he tweeted that the president "has shown a wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution."

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about that...

Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of  a principle which recognizes the right​of each individual person to use his o​wn, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'  Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26, 25 S. Ct. 358, 361, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905)

If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 37-38, 25 S. Ct. 358, 366, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905).

The Supreme Court has literally held that when it comes to vaccine mandates, your individual liberty is subordinate to the public interest. And they held that 116 years ago.
 
2021-09-27 6:03:33 PM  

GardenWeasel: Grandstanding. None of these should even make it out of committee.


None of these should have been brought forth in an even semi-functional and sane society.
 
2021-09-27 6:04:46 PM  
How does a state target federal mandates? What authority does a state have to obstruct federal laws?
 
2021-09-27 6:09:41 PM  

austerity101: How does a state target federal mandates? What authority does a state have to obstruct federal laws?


That's the "beauty" of overlapping sovereignty and the 10A -- endless array of mind-boggling lawsuits by states whining about what they perceive as federal gov't "overreach".

/the butthurt, it is strong in the red states
 
2021-09-27 6:13:58 PM  

OldRod: Wow, what an asshole!


Yes, but would you expect anything else from the guy who is the closest thing to a friend Raphael Cruz has in the senate?
 
2021-09-27 6:16:26 PM  
Someone should add a nudity amendment to the bill, just for the hell of it.
 
2021-09-27 6:16:39 PM  

austerity101: How does a state target federal mandates? What authority does a state have to obstruct federal laws?


None. They don't have to help implement it, but they can't obstruct or frustrate it.
 
2021-09-27 6:24:37 PM  

shut_it_down: After Biden announced his plan for mandates, he tweeted that the president "has shown a wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution."

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about that...

Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of  a principle which recognizes the right​of each individual person to use his o​wn, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'  Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26, 25 S. Ct. 358, 361, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905)

If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 37-38, 25 S. Ct. 358, 366, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905).

The Supreme Court has literally held that when it comes to vaccine mandates, your individual liberty is subordinate to the public interest. And they held that 116 years ago.


The conservative corrupted SCOTUS had no problem ignoring its own precedent to destroy the Voting Rights Act and enable Jim Crow 2.

Why do you think they'd hesitate on this?
 
2021-09-27 6:26:53 PM  
Wow, he's even going against his church's edict, from the Prophet himself, to mask up & get vaccinated. I'm sure they gave him some kind of Rich White Guy pass to do so.
 
2021-09-27 6:43:43 PM  

Mugato: What the fark is the deal with people who won't wear a mask or won't get a free vaccine? I really don't understand this.


They'd much rather go out of their way to drive out of the city, find a random agricultural supply store, lie about why they pulled up in a Ford Focus rather than a farm-beaten F150, pay for medication designed for sheep, and take it knowing they'll go blind.

It's much easier than saying "You know, I have more information now, so I'll just get the free shot".
 
2021-09-27 6:47:10 PM  
S. 2954 - A bill that prohibits the federal government from doing what they're obligated to do under the law.

S. 2849 - A bill that says the Constitution doesn't say what it says.

S. 2345 - A bill that says "nu-uh"

S. 2043 - A bill to exempt individuals from doing anything common sense if the federal government comes around here with a knife or something trying to push us around because I hate knives ok and this one time I punched a guy so hard his braces came through his lip. Also you wouldn't know my girlfriend she's from Canada but she's really pretty and other things like pets are exempt if they have a personal belief.
 
2021-09-27 6:58:41 PM  
Sane intelligent people will get the vaccine anyway.
Fark him.
Keep killing your base, morons.
 
2021-09-27 7:22:18 PM  

pueblonative: We sure his maiden name isn't Hunt?


Maybe his middle name is "Sad".
 
2021-09-27 7:36:10 PM  
Being Republican is a political stunt.
 
2021-09-27 7:53:31 PM  

shut_it_down: After Biden announced his plan for mandates, he tweeted that the president "has shown a wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution."

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about that...

Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of  a principle which recognizes the right​of each individual person to use his o​wn, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.'  Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26, 25 S. Ct. 358, 361, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905)

If such be the privilege of a minority, then a like privilege would belong to each individual of the community, and the spectacle would be presented of the welfare and safety of an entire population being subordinated to the notions of a single individual who chooses to remain a part of that population. We are unwilling to hold it to be an element in the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States that one person, or a minority of persons, residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have the power thus to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the state. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 37-38, 25 S. Ct. 358, 366, 49 L. Ed. 643 (1905).

The Supreme Court has literally held that when it comes to vaccine mandates, your individual liberty is subordinate to the public interest. And they held that 116 years ago.


Yeah but...Kavanaugh and Barrett
 
2021-09-27 7:55:15 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-27 8:10:34 PM  
Public policy or political stunt?

Do you really have to ask.  Lee is nothing but a political stunt.
 
2021-09-27 8:23:47 PM  
Clearly a case of LDS on LSD.
 
2021-09-27 9:51:50 PM  

erik-k: The conservative corrupted SCOTUS had no problem ignoring its own precedent to destroy the Voting Rights Act and enable Jim Crow 2.

Why do you think they'd hesitate on this?


I don't, but the fact that SCOTUS has ruled specifically in favor of the constitutionality of vaccine mandates means that this is *not* "wanton disregard for the Constitution." It's just an objectively incorrect characterization of this policy and makes him more than a little bit of a drama queen.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.