Was It Over When The Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor?

“I didn’t compare it to the Holocaust, I compared it to the beginning of the Holocaust which were the Nuremberg Trials.”

WHATTTTTT IS HAPPENING https://t.co/8SxSX681vW

— Blimi Marcus (@MarcusBlimi) June 15, 2021

I'm geniuinely curious: did the employees file this pro se (not sure a group can do that, come to think of it), or did some lawyer willingly take their money for this turkey? 

In his ruling, Judge Hughes called the plaintiffs' claim that currently available COVID-19 vaccines are "experimental and dangerous" an argument that is both false and irrelevant. "Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker," Hughes wrote, adding that the "press-release style of the complaint" fails to specify what illegal acts the plaintiffs were alleged to have been asked to perform.

"Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties," the judge wrote.

The judge also denounced the plaintiffs for equating the vaccine mandate to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust. "Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible," Hughes said. "Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death."

Because this suit always had zero chance.*  Or rather, it had as much chance as Trump's election fraud challenges.

The packet of materials includes a "draft complaint" that was intended to be submitted to the US Supreme Court as an "original action."

It's - as one might expect - bonkers. Totally fucknutty. https://t.co/yNpeAM9EWG

— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) June 15, 2021

Come to think of it, it may have been the same lawyer; or one who learned from the example:

It looks like Trump wanted the United States to sue the swing states that he lost using a complaint that was clearly drafted by the same seditious treasonweasel that drafted the complaint SCOTUS yeeted in Texas v Pennsylvania.

(Here's a side-by-side): pic.twitter.com/J3WGQPhCsD

— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) June 15, 2021

Like I said - totally fucknutty. No way am I doing a deep dive (but if you search my timeline for Texas v Pennsylvania stuff, most of what I said then will apply because it's for all intents and purposes *the same exact complaint* only the idea was to have the USA as plaintiff).

— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) June 15, 2021

It looks like, in the end, the lawyers and the dreaded "institutionalists," saved us:

Like I said - totally fucknutty. No way am I doing a deep dive (but if you search my timeline for Texas v Pennsylvania stuff, most of what I said then will apply because it's for all intents and purposes *the same exact complaint* only the idea was to have the USA as plaintiff).

— Mike Dunford (@questauthority) June 15, 2021

Or at least kept things from getting much, much worse.

*that NPR article answers my question:  the lawyer is vowing to appeal to the 5th Circuit.  He knows a cash cow when he sees one.