By: Steven Berge

Steven Berge — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 15:58:34 +0000

The supreme court is like a back stop for any action that seriously affects the mega corporate bottom line. Way back in the late 1800’s they headed off rising anti corporate sentiment by declaring that they did not want to hear whether corporations had the same rights as people, because they were “of the opinion that they do,” on top of the special rights they have that people don’t. They effectively made law! Then in another corporate ruling lately, they doubled down and said that money is equal to free speech, and nobody can limit the spending of money on any kind of speech. And that’s why elections are so expensive. That’s why nearly all candidates that win take corporate bribes. That’s why, as Biden said to a room full of mega banksters after he was elected, “nothing will materially change.” That’s why I don’t vote for Republicrats.

By: David Eade

David Eade — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 20:21:51 +0000

I have a question. So the judge who “halted” the “Update” has no knowledge of vaccines, no scientific point to his validation and is therefore choosing to use a “legal loophole” to stop the $$$ from which I would bet my entire life savings that he/she has specifically received funding via NGO to run for their current position. ( I know it!) With that being said, what legal argument can be made for halting the change? If the judge halts the CDCs determination then on what basis is he/she doing so? (Is that basis on “safety”- ie hypothesis that loss of vaccines would cause greater child hood deaths?) If the legal decision is based on a “fallacy” then not only has the judge stepped outside their boundary but they are now interfering with a federal branch of the government who have scoured through the medical data, and re-established the “dangers” of the advanced schedule as it may cause more harm. In other words the judge is clearly putting themselves in between efficacy and opinion! (There are no substantiative data results that can validate their opinion especially if you have watched the hearings with Attorney Ali who argued on behalf of the vaccinated! (Brilliant man who read all the data by the way!). Please help me understand? Thank you.

Comments on: Court Halts Vaccine Policy Overhaul, Leaving Bigger Questions Unanswered

By: Steven Berge

By: David Eade