Legal Analysis
So many rulings, such wow.
Disclaimer: This does not constitute legal advice. Speak with a legal professional regarding your case.
Let us take a look at some legal cases and rulings.
Case: Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo
Summary: Can Federal agencies (re)interpret (ambiguous) Congressional laws?
The Daily Beagle’s Opinion: No. The Constitution makes clear that there is a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The only nominated power for interpretation of ambiguous laws are the courts themselves. The fact the court is attempting to interpret this ambiguity is a Q.E.D.
Case: Murthy v. Missouri
Summary: Can the US government compel social media to censor the public?
Ruling: The SCOTUS claim that plaintiffs lacked Article III Standing to bring lawsuit against the US government (see here for Article III).
The Daily Beagle’s Opinion: The Daily Beagle concurs with Justice Alito’s judgment that the majority justices erred. Majority justices failed to explain why the case lacks Article III Standing — specifically, what part of the test it falls down on.
Normally this claim is reserved when plaintiffs fail to show harm, however the censorship is the harm, and a violation of First Amendment rights is sufficient to meet that requirement. Perhaps the court refers to the redressability. A financial penalty for loss of business and rights, proportionate to the amount required to re-establish reach, and an injunction, would suffice.
We suspect an investigation into the justices who refused Standing to see if they have any financial conflicts of interest is warranted, given this ruling would impact the entire tech sector, and it’d be hard to believe none of them have investments into technology companies.
We’re of the view that Missouri and Louisiana need to onboard other US States (at least 20 or so), and grow the size of noted victims of censorship from the 5, to the millions of Americans, such SCOTUS can’t simply toss it. Meanwhile, a legislative action needs to be undertaken to prohibit SCOTUS from issuing ‘lack of standing’ rules without explanation.
Case: Children's Health Defense V. FDA, Et Al
Summary: None provided. Vague details here.
Ruling: Dismissed for lack of Article III Standing.
The Daily Beagle’s Opinion: This will be difficult for non-legal types to hear.
This case lacks a summary on the priniciple that the legal position CHD put forward is, in The Daily Beagle’s humble opinion, incoherent legal word salad. SCOTUS dismissed on Article III because, frankly, CHD’s position was nonsense.
Their lawsuit boils down to: ‘We want to sue the FDA for approving the COVID-19 shots’. If you’re not familiar with law, this is an incomplete and invalid legal case.
For a legal case to be valid it must propose, in general:
A specific tort (that’s a type of wrongdoing, in the criminal sense)
An A-to-B causation of how their actions caused that tort
A proposition on how to remedy that tort (I.E. what steps are you asking the court to rectify this wrongful action? So if you ask the court to ‘give you the moon’, they’ll dismiss because it’s not redressable; not within their remit)
To be clear, the criticisms of the FDA are not wrong, but the legal case has been incorrectly filed. If we didn’t know better, we’d say the case was intentionally sabotaged so it would fail.
If their legal case was to be restructured, it would use the following:
Jane Doe got seriously injured by the COVID-19 shot
Jane Doe would not have been seriously injured by the COVID-19 shot if the FDA had not approved it
Jane Doe trusted the FDA approval, believing it showed safety
The FDA misled Jane Doe into taking a harmful shot by giving erroneous approval
Remedy to torts are:
Financial remediation to Jane Doe for past, current and future injuries/harms/losses
Withdrawal of the COVID-19 shots from market
An announcement by the FDA publicly stating they erred in giving approval to the shots
Despite all the deaths and harms, the CHD simply claimed their torts were… fears:
If you ask any competent lawyer, they will tell you fear is not an addressable tort (the closest is emotional damage, but why argue that when you have actual deaths?).
Basically CHD were insinuating that risks were imaginary fears. As opposed to real life injuries. Courts cannot address fears, being incorporeal things.
This isn’t the first time CHD have filed a nonsense legal case designed to fail. In 2022 they filed a case against the FDA in a State court system.
The State court had to dismiss because of a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction”. In plain English, it means the State court does not have the power to rule over a Federal jurisdiction (the FDA is a Federal agency, not a State agency). To do that, you’d need to file in a Federal court.
Why did CHD intentionally misfile the case?
It seems strikingly like they’re trying to convince the public, that the public in general are powerless to bring lawsuits, by attempting to exploit their ignorance on why lawsuits fail, in order to engineer designed-to-fail lawsuits on intentionally flawed grounds.
Case: Mahmoud v. McKnight
Ruling: Parents are not entitled to religious exemptions.
The Daily Beagle’s Opinion: This violates the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State powers, which prohibits the government from either enforcing (E.G. shoving LGBTQ propaganda down people’s throats) or restricting (E.G. preventing parents from withdrawing from said activities) any sort of religious activity.
Essentially the 4th Circuit compels the attendence of children to these activities against their beliefs, which is unenforceable.
The 4th Circuit errors by trying to claim the parents did not bring ‘sufficient amounts of evidence’ regarding indoctrination. The parents need not prove indoctrination is occurring to have access to their First Amendment rights; they only need to prove their beliefs are violated, and the compelled lessons are sufficient proof of that.
Perhaps the plaintiffs may need to amend or revise their case to make it stronger against such fallacies, but the 4th Circuit is clearly in the wrong and knows it.
Case: We The Patriots USA, Inc., et al. v Connecticut Office of Early Childhood Development, et al.
Summary: Does the State have the right to remove religious exemptions compelling those against their will to take the vaccine?
Ruling (SCOTUS): declined to hear the case.
Ruling (2nd Circuit): claimed that mandated vaccines somehow didn’t violate religious beliefs/freedom of expression.
The Daily Beagle’s Opinion: It is clear SCOTUS are shirking their duties, and are trying to treat this as a State-level issue, rather than a Constitutional issue. It is painfully obvious that Connecticut are medically experimenting on children against their will by revoking religious exemptions.
Religious exemptions are, in our humble opinion, a red herring, because the State doesn’t get to decide whose religious beliefs are valid or not. Which also extends to them not having the power to mandate vaccines against will or belief, either.
It is clear U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton is corrupt, and ought to be investigated for ties to the vaccine industry. Their ruling is so blatantly Unconstitutional you’d have to be blind not to see it.
Dishonourable Mentions
Here are some dishonourable mentions of legal infringements. As they partain to legal systems we’re not familiar with, we can’t opine, but they are so blatantly immoral and wrong they deserve mentioning anyway.
Spanish Court acquits a child rapist because child rape is part of gypsy culture.
Woman who verbally criticises migrants gets longer sentence than the migrant rapists.
French teenager arrested for demanding foreign rapists be deported.
You don’t need a legal opinion on these: these courts are all corrupt.
And finally, a piece of good news:
Case: State of Kansas, Kris W. Kobach v Pfizer Inc
The Daily Beagle’s Opinion: Not much else to add. We hope this has something to do with our RICO article from a while back. It’s a good lawsuit, and we hope other States join in.
The only thing to ask is why aren’t there prosecutions yet?
Even Boeing saw threats of prosecutions for breaking safety agreements. About time Pfizer & Co did.
Related Articles To Read
US Pharmaceutical Companies Are Not Completely Immune: Part 1
US Pharmaceutical Companies Are Not Completely Immune: Part 2
EMA Leaks: Trial Site News Finds Pfizer Likely Committed Fraud
Found this informative?
Help inform?
Thoughts, dear reader?
Whilst I'm here, I will also tag on this case that recently came to my attention.
Case: United States v. Skrmetti
Summary: Does a ban on 'transgender procedures' violate the 14th amendment? (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/)
The Daily Beagle's Opinion: This is a horribly messy ruling to make, and we have to first explore historical context.
Firstly, when the 14th amendment was drafted, it was extremely unlikely the concept of individuals having an opinion that differs from their biological reality would have been encompassed, as the concept did not exist at the time.
One could argue that the 14th amendment S.1 is a giant umbrella that includes 'everybody', however if we look at the other sections of the 14th amendment, we can see evidence that only explicit inclusion metrics were used. For example, S.2 mentions "excluding Indians not taxed", and even makes a specific reference to biological gender, such as "[...] is denied to any of the male inhabitants [...]" (male inhabitants here referring to all Americans, not just 'Indians not taxed').
Obviously when S.2. was written, "male" referred to the 'at time' concept of a male, that is, biological sex. It does not say 'those who aren't physically male but believe themselves male'; and they do make distinctions: they were able to distinguish between taxed and non-taxed 'Indians'. So the Constitution makes a strict, biological interpretation of male and female, fitting with the time period.
So one might alternatively approach this from the angle of US Citizen. We hit an interesting situation:
"[...] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [...]"
Notice it says a State must NOT deprive any person of 'life' or 'liberty'. If we take Tennessee's argument at face value that these surgeries are unnecessary, pose risk of harms - for example, driving minors to suicide post-surgery, or risk of death during said surgery - Tennessee is actually enjoined from allowing these to happen.
The crux of the argument then boils down to:
1) Are these necessary? [allowing potentially fatal surgery to save a life at risk of immediate harm does not violate S.1.]
2) Are these harmful? [allowing non-fatal, non-harmful surgeries to occur would not violate S.1.]
The court, we recognise, is not a medical institution. The Daily Beagle must declare a bias against the procedures at this point, but we trust our rationale is so plain speaking and self-evidently truthful that the justices would concur with our viewpoint.
1) They are not necessary, because the belief one is a different gender does not causally or consequentially result in immediate harm or death. The fact the plaintiffs are still alive during this long-standing legal procedure is evidence of this. Therefore, the burden lies solely on whether or not the surgery procedures are harmful.
2) Are they harmful? Even if we assume the surgeries have a zero percent fatality rate, we have numerous case precedents of minors being surgically altered and castrated (for that is what the end result is, ultimately) [see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/judge-robert-hickle-sides-with-child], castration in itself is a harm. Even if we assume the lower spectrum - breast mutilation - minors are often permanently disfigured, and a number have filed lawsuits that they were basically coerced into the procedure (see prior link). Some have even committed suicide as a result of the disfigurement.
Of course, surgeries do not have a zero percent fatality rate. So they are not zero risk.
So we have an unnecessary, high risk, permanently harmful procedure, to 'treat' a *belief* that does not immediately result in fatality.
We also propose the justices think of the precedent set if they rule that a simple belief is sufficient to compel surgery. This is an absurd scenario, but the court will hopefully recognize, when it comes to serial killers, truth is stranger than fiction.
Hypothetical case scenario:
Let us say, there's the Self-Harming Cult of Self-Harmers. The cult believes you should have the right to always self-harm. Cutting wrists, cutting off each others toes (all performed in a certified amputation hospital, of course!), removing hands and eyes. They always survive the procedures, a 100% safety rate. The made-up State of Abranka bans the Self-Harming procedures as they believe it enables abuse.
The Self-Harmers bring suit all the way to SCOTUS, and they cite the precedent that all US Citizens have the right to 'life' and 'liberty' under 14th Amendment and that they should be free to self-harm themselves (it won't be called self-harming though, but "affirmative care to validate their beliefs on self-amputation").
If you were to rule against this hypothetical scenario, how is it fundamentally different to what is being proposed here?
But if you rule in favour, what's to stop a serial abuser from suggesting his cult of brainwashed followers (lets say... Jim Jones) being abused is a legal right?
What we have here is a 'quacks like a duck' situation. If Tennessee is not able to ban surgical procedures, then it means Tennessee has no power to regulate *any* surgical procedures. Including tooth and toenail extractions by the mob.
One has the right to practice their own beliefs, but it does not come with the power to compel the State to enable or join in on said practice. Separation of Church and State. Also, it would make laws pertaining to physical child abuse extremely difficult to enforce, because if cutting a child's genitals and breasts is legal... what's to stop other physical mutilations under the same guise? Is this what the US wants to be known for, legal child harm?
And within less than 24 hours of publishing this article, SCOTUS makes a ruling on Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo...
...coming to the exact same conclusion as The Daily Beagle.
"[...] judges will substitute their own best interpretation of the law, instead of deferring to the agencies - effectively making it easier to overturn regulations that govern wide-ranging aspects of American life."
https://web.archive.org/web/20240628181406/https://www.zerohedge.com/political/scotus-overturns-chevron-deference-massive-blow-administrative-state
I'll detail specifically why the comment makes legal sense.
The precedence of courts interpreting rules has been long established within English law, dating, arguably, as early as the Magna Carta, when requirements of judges/juries was established. US law inherits from the Magna Carta, and often times both US and UK court precedents will borrow from each other for clarity. Within English law, there is a heavy emphasis that whilst Parliament writes laws, courts will interpret them, as a buffer against Parliamentary overreach and absurd, contradictory outcomes.
Having courts interpret laws is intended both as a means of separation of powers, and as a means for dealing with ambiguous laws that are either incomplete, or did not foresee specific circumstances and scenarios
Courts are designed entirely around the concept of interpretation of laws; they have qualified judges, lawyers, long-standing historical precedent setting cases, and the means for multiple sides to argue their specific positions regarding different interpretations.
This prevents legislative interpretation from becoming a lopsided affair where the legislative always interprets in favour of itself when disputes over wording arises; this can and does lead to 'Humpty Dumpty reasoning':
"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
This prejudices cases if allowed to happen, as even when the legislative offers a bizarre, twisted, unfair explanation - one not expected by the 'reasonable person on the street' - there are no means of recourse. One day the legislative could declare "fine" means everything is okay, and then the next reinterpret "fine" to mean a financial penalty of $1 million. Agencies cannot be voted on, and Congress does not have the speed to correct rapid re/misinterpretations by agencies.
It makes more sense then, to follow the traditional English law model, and have courts interpret laws, as a means to separate powers between the three branches, then you get a fair balance:
Congress writes laws (Legislative).
President vetoes laws, and can write executive orders (Executive).
Courts interpret laws (Judiciary).
Otherwise, if SCOTUS had approved the 'Chevron Deference', they'd be giving away court power to interpret laws. Court interpretations wouldn't matter because the agencies could just reinterpret laws on a whim, evading any sort of fairness or justice within the system.
Anyway, I'm glad SCOTUS came to a sensible decision.