Supremes Again Support Toxic Mass-Jabbing

Support for mandated health-destroying jabs flagrantly breaches the Nuremberg Code requirement of voluntary consent on all things health related.

Toxic jabbing that doesn’t protect also breaches the Hippocratic Oath principle of doing no harm.

The US Supreme Court stands guilty as charged — for the fourth time on this crucial issue.

In August, Justice Amy Coney Barrett opposed the “constitutional right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and of medical treatment choice in the context of (an unconstitutional flu/covid jabbing) mandate” — what Indiana Univ. (IU) students asked the court to ban.

In early October, Justice Sonia Sotomayor followed suit by denying an emergency request of NYC teachers to remain employed unjabbed with protecting and preserving their health in mind.

Their request followed an illegal order by mayor de Blasio to self-inflict harm or get fired.

Separately this month, Justice Stephen Breyer sided with health-destroying jabs over the right of Maine healthcare workers to shun them — their constitutional right overridden by Breyer’s extrajudicial ruling.

On Friday for the fourth time, the Supremes sided with the devil over what’s mandated by international and constitutional law.

The Court rejected an emergency appeal by Maine healthcare workers at hospitals and nursing homes to block mandatory jabs on religious grounds.

Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented, the latter representing them saying the following:

“This case presents an important constitutional question, a serious error, and an irreparable injury.”

“Where many other states have adopted religious exemptions, Maine has charted a different course.” 

“There, health care workers who have served on the front line of a pandemic (that’s invented, except for the jabbed) for the last 18 months are now being fired and their practices shuttered.” 

“All for adhering to their constitutionally protected religious beliefs. Their plight is worthy of our attention.”

Maine requires jabs for protection against various contagious diseases not gotten by what’s injected into the arms of state residents.

In 2019, it banned objections to jabs — that don’t protect — on religious grounds, a flagrant First Amendment breach the High Court refused to consider in its majority ruling.

Speech, media, academic and religious freedoms are constitutionally protected — not according the Court on Friday by no longer affirming freedom of religion by opposing what conflicts with it.

Friday’s ruling on John Does et al v. Janet T. Mills, Governor of Maine et al said the following:

“The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is denied.”

JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in the denial of application for injunctive relief.”

“When this Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief, it considers, among other things, whether the applicant ‘is likely to succeed on the merits.’ ” 

Nken v. Holder, 556 US 418, 434 (2009).” 

“I understand this factor to encompass not only an assessment of the underlying merits but also a discretionary judgment about whether the Court should grant review in the case.” 

“See, e.g., Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 US 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam); cf. Supreme Court Rule 10. Were the standard otherwise, applicants could use the emergency docket to force the Court to give a merits pre- view in cases that it would be unlikely to take—and to do so on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing and oral argument.” 

“In my view, this discretionary consideration counsels against a grant of extraordinary relief in this case, which is the first to address the questions presented.”

Earlier, the Supremes granted churches and other houses of worship exemptions from flu/covid related mandates.

Friday’s ruling went the other way.

Most important is the right of everyone over their bodily integrity as mandated by international law, as well as the US Constitution’s 4th and 14th Amendments.

In support of health-destroying jabs, the High Court refused to recognize the above right in its Friday ruling.

Refusenik healthcare workers in Maine have an option that US Supreme Court justices cannot block — the right to seek new employment where their constitutional rights are respected and protected.

One thought on “Supremes Again Support Toxic Mass-Jabbing

Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: