Supreme Court: Vaccine makers cannot be sued

reply to post by searching4truth


There you are , another proof of WHO'S KILLING WHO TODAY!

Originally posted by abecedarian

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
From the source:

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

This is what happens when you have a conservative court that only sides with the corporations.
....

So the liberal judges "dissented". What does that mean?
They're in favor of the people and they lack the cajones to say so?
Read between the lines... read... the lines.

No. Dissenting means that they did not sign on to the verdict and, in fact, issued a dissenting opinion stating their concerns. Don't forget, the SCOTUS rules by simple majority so there is no such thing as a hung court the way that a determined juror can stop a verdict with which they disagree.

www.supremecourt.gov... If you care to read through the entire opinion.

I find it interesting that the decision went along gender lines (as opposed to political affiliation). Both dissenting justices were women, the third woman did not participate. I wonder if men and women view the vaccine differently.

That is not all, this ruling also will be supporting the one in congress that wants to fight the parent choices to opt for vaccinations.

Meaning that the doctors and big pharma can still vaccinate your children with dangerous vaccines and still be without fault because now they have to sign the consent of your opt out for certain vaccines.

Everybody with young children and those to become parents better follow up of what is going on, because already one state wants to give the rights of the parents to the doctors and big pharma when it comes to vaccinations options.

The state of Washington is the first state to sell our children's to big pharma and take your rights of parents to make choices for your children, they can also kill your children without repercussions.

Welcome to corporate America

reply to post by abecedarian


First, my ignorant friend, let's review what dissent means;

dis·sent (d-snt)
intr.v. dis·sent·ed, dis·sent·ing, dis·sents
1. To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree.
2. To withhold assent or approval.
n.
1. Difference of opinion or feeling; disagreement.
2. The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church; nonconformity.
3. Law A justice's refusal to concur with the opinion of a majority, as on a higher court. Also called dissenting opinion.

In this case, it means the "liberal" judges voted "nay", it was the "conservative" judges who handed their corporate masters another victory, i.e., they can now market a pharmaceutical drug that may or may not have unintended consequences, even harmful one, to a patient without any legal ramifications - especially reactions to vaccinations.

If anyone needed affirmation of the influence that big business exerts over the supposedly strongest democracy in the world has their answer, surely this would have to be unconstitutional, if it isn't it should be.
None of the rest of us are immune for our actions, some people will NOT be happy until there are protests on every street, they should be careful what they wish for otherwise it may just happen in their own street.
The truly scarey part of this is it is happening more & more openly, which should worry everyone, this usually means that an ultimate goal (whatever it turns out to be) is much closer to fruition & without dialogue that can't be good for the masses otherwise they would indeed want their support.
I wish you all well & the best of luck