XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics, aus.politics   
   XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, rec.arts.tv, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, uk.politics.misc, alt.global-warming   
   XPost: alt.atheism, or.politics, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   XPost: sac.politics, alt.politics, uk.politics.misc   
   From: gayrightistsx@yahoomail.com   
      
   >The Supreme Court on Friday evening decided, no, it was not going to needle   
   >ssly insert itself in the military chain of command above President Joe Bid   
   >en.   
   >   
   >The Courtƒ Ts decision in Austin v. U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 largely halt   
   >ed a lower court order that permitted certain sailors to defy a direct orde   
   >r. A group of Navy special operations personnel sought an exemption from th   
   >e Pentagonƒ Ts requirement that all active duty service members get v   
   >accinated against Covid-19, claiming that they should receive a religious e   
   >xemption.   
   >   
   >A majority of the Court effectively ruled that, yes, in fact, troops do hav   
   >e to follow orders, including an order to take a vaccine.   
   >   
   >The decision is undeniably a win for the balance of power between the execu   
   >tive branch and the judiciary that has prevailed for many decades. But the   
   >fact that the Court had to weigh in on this at all ƒ " not to mention   
   > that three justices, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gors   
   >uch, dissented from the majority ƒ " is a worrisome sign about Americ   
   >aƒ Ts judiciary.   
   >   
   >As Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained in a brief opinion laying out why the   
   >lower court erred, this court ƒ oin effect inserted itself into the N   
   >avyƒ Ts chain of command, overriding military commandersƒ T pro   
   >fessional military judgments.ƒ   Had the Court ruled the other way in   
   > SEALs, it would have effectively placed itself at the apex of the military   
   >ƒ Ts chain of command, displacing Biden as commander-in-chief.   
   >   
   >But as Kavanaugh correctly notes in his concurring opinion, there is a long   
   > line of Supreme Court precedents establishing that courts should be exceed   
   >ingly reluctant to interfere with military affairs.   
   >   
   >In Gilligan v. Morgan (1973), for example, the Court held that ƒ othe   
   > complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, trainin   
   >g, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional   
   >military judgments,ƒ   and that ƒ oit is difficult to conceive   
   >of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competenc   
   >e.ƒ   
   >   
   >https://www.vox.com/22996799/supreme-court-biden-navy-seal-vaccine-austin-c   
   >ovid   
      
   rightwing antivaxxers lose again.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)