ANOTHER JOKE DECISION, ANOTHER JOKE JUDGE.

We may have gotten rid of DONALD TRUMP, but his intellectual equals still seek to dumb down, and ultimately destroy our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

NEW CASE IN POINT.

Washington (CNN) A federal judge in Texas on Monday ruled against the Biden administration's vaccine requirement for members of the military in a decision that took aim at how the Navy's policies handled those who sought religious exemptions from receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.

US District Judge Reed O'Connor issued a preliminary order blocking the Navy from taking adverse action against 35 Navy Seals who sued in court because they are seeking exemption from the vaccine requirement for religious reasons. The order blocked the Navy from implementing policies that would allow those religious objectors to be deemed non-deployable or disqualified from Special Operations. 

"The Navy service members in this case seek to vindicate the very freedoms they have sacrificed so much to protect," O'Connor wrote in his order. "The COVID-19 pandemic provides the government no license to abrogate those freedoms. There is no COVID-19 exception to the First Amendment. There is no military exclusion from our Constitution."

The Navy declined to comment on the litigation.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO THIS "LEGAL SCHOLAR," ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CLAIM "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM," AND YOU ARE EXEMPTED FROM ANY LIMITATIONS THAT MIGHT BE INSTITUTED BY GOVERNMENT FOR THE "PUBLIC GOOD." In fact, according to this "JUDGE," government cannot require any American to be vaccinated, for any reason, if it violates their RELIGIOUS FAITH, MILITARY OR NOT. 

From U.S History we learn that the following:

- NOT PAYING TAXES. 

- HARASSING OR INTIMIDATING OTHERS.

- BEATING YOUR SPOUSE AND KIDS.

- DISCRIMINATION AND INTIMIDATION AGAINST

OTHER FAITHS.

- SEXISM AND APPLYING DIFFERENT STANDARDS

FOR EACH GENDER.

Were, at one time, argued to be  "PROTECTED BEHAVIORS" UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF "FREEDOM OF RELIGION." Yet, those "EXEMPTIONS" do not apply in todays courts.

WHY? Since I have actually taken the time to examine past cases relevant to the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF "FREEDOM OF RELIGION," I found the following:

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State.

As I stated in other articles, there is no ABSOLUTE RIGHT of FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF RELIGION. (ABSOLUTE MEANING NO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL.) The above SUPREME COURT Ruling makes that clear.

This judicial decision flies in the face of JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, MORAL ACCOUNTABILITY, AND COMMON SENSE. Further, members of the U.S.  MilItary are held to the same legal standards as every other American, regardless of Branch or MOS. Being a member of the Military, or a first responder, does not exempt you from personal responsibility. WE CALL THAT EQUALITY IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, A MORAL ABSOLUTE WORTH PROTECTING, AND IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE.