Started By
Message
locked post

Judge Rejects Lawsuit Against Lafayette Hospital Vaccine Mandate

Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:23 pm
Posted by DotBling
Member since Oct 2019
3166 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:23 pm
A lot of medical workers were relying on this to at least buy them some time. Probably the worst outcome that could have happened:

KATC.com Article

Posted by keakar
Member since Jan 2017
30152 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:25 pm to
no standing

doctors and nurses are too dumb to make their own educated and informed medical decisions, daddy biden decides whats best for you
Posted by Stingray
Shreveport
Member since Sep 2007
12441 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:29 pm to
American freedom is a sick joke
Posted by GhostOfFreedom
Member since Jan 2021
13113 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:30 pm to
Tyranny pisses me off.

No standing bull shite.
Posted by NineLineBind
LA....no, the other one
Member since May 2020
8431 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:34 pm to
quote:

no standing

Someone please explain this to me like I’m a recently-formed gamete.
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
56127 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:38 pm to
quote:

Judge


Who remains nameless in the article posted. Shitty arse reporting again on display here.
Posted by keakar
Member since Jan 2017
30152 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:39 pm to
quote:

no standing

Someone please explain this to me like I’m a recently-formed gamete.



thats the term judges use when they decide to rule contrary to established law and the constitution

its judge speak for frick you we dont care about your rights
Posted by FightinTigersDammit
Louisiana North
Member since Mar 2006
46425 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:39 pm to
quote:

Someone please explain this to me like I’m a recently-formed gamete.



Usually means the judge suffers from LMF
Lack of Moral Fiber
Posted by NineLineBind
LA....no, the other one
Member since May 2020
8431 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:42 pm to
quote:

thats the term judges use when they decide to rule contrary to established law and the constitution

its judge speak for frick you we dont care about your rights

Right.

If THESE people don’t have standing in THIS situation, then I can’t see how anyone ever does have standing.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84590 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:43 pm to
It’s a local state district court judge.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84590 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:45 pm to
Standing has nothing to do with this case. The hospitals are private employers and are free to mandate conditions of employment in an at-will state.

He followed the law. An activist judge would have looked beyond the law. If the legislature wants to outlaw vax mandates from private employers then that is their prerogative to do so.
This post was edited on 9/23/21 at 4:46 pm
Posted by oldskule
Down South
Member since Mar 2016
23361 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:46 pm to
quote:

no standing


That means the judge and the court don't feel like making a decision!

Judges are as corrupt as the politicians, or more!!!!!
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
112854 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:46 pm to
That's bullshite. The law is clearly on the plaintiffs' side.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84590 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:46 pm to
No standing here is literally fake news. But don’t like that stop you from getting worked up.
Posted by Big Scrub TX
Member since Dec 2013
38521 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:47 pm to
quote:

Standing has nothing to do with this case. The hospitals are private employers and are free to mandate conditions of employment in an at-will state.

He followed the law. An activist judge would have looked beyond the law. If the legislature wants to outlaw vax mandates from private employers then that is their prerogative to do so.
yep
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84590 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:47 pm to
You read the briefing?
Posted by Stingray
Shreveport
Member since Sep 2007
12441 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:48 pm to
quote:

He followed the law. An activist judge would have looked beyond the law. If the legislature wants to outlaw vax mandates from private employers then that is their prerogative to do so.


It's not that simple. Mandatory healthcare is a civil rights violation.
Can an employer require his employees to murder people because it's an at-will state?
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:49 pm to
Absolutely no details in that article.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
112854 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:49 pm to
If it was anything similar to the legal arguments set forth in the letter, it should have been a slam dunk.

At will is what it is, but the law is clear you cannot fire someone for an illegal reason.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
84590 posts
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:49 pm to
It’s not mandatory. They are free to refuse the vaccine. They are then free to work somewhere else. You don’t have a vested property interest in your job in an at-will state.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram