This did not take long:
The tweet contains a typo. It should read “staggeringly overbroad” instead of overboard.
“We next consider the necessity of the Mandate. The Mandate is staggeringly over broad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to consider what isn perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had the virus. The list goes on, but one constant remains–the Mandate fails almost completely to address, or even respond to, much of this reality and common sense.”
Wow. A federal court actually using common sense? I am stunned that they actually went as far as to point out the very obvious–but unspeakable–fact that
NOT EVERYBODY NEEDS THE FUCKING VACCINE.
Young, healthy people don’t need to get vaccinated. It is not necessary. Covid poses almost no threat to them at all.
Doesn’t matter. Biden just repeats the same garbage over and over: “GET YOUR VACCINE SHOTS!” “VAX UP, FOLKS!”
If there actually was an argument against the idea that it’s perfectly fine for people to be unvaccinated if they’re in low-risk groups, I guess it would be: “But the unvaxxed are endangering other people who are vulnerable!”
But I thought the vaccine was supposed to “protect” people?
No, it doesn’t?
Theoretically, if you’re vaccinated, it shouldn’t matter if someone else is unvaccinated, because you having the vaccine “protects” you.
Obviously we know this isn’t the case. The vaccine does not prevent you from getting Covid. It merely “protects” you, whatever the hell that means. The vaccine obviously doesn’t immunize anyone from Covid, so what exactly does “protect” mean? It’s intentionally vague language designed to limit the liability of the vaccine makers and the politicians pushing the mandate. It’s so they can say, “Hey, we never said the vaccines would prevent you from getting Covid, we only said they would protect you!”
The most outrageous thing about the whole vaccine mandate is that as the vaccine has with time proven to be less and less effective, the calls to make the vaccine mandatory have only gotten louder and louder.
At first, the vaccine was a choice. But then, as it became clear the vaccine doesn’t work, the vaccine became mandatory.
I’m also shocked to read that the court cited natural immunity as a reason why not everyone should be required to get the vaccine. This is another of the “unmentionable” truths about Covid: natural immunity is way stronger than vaccine “immunity,” and should be treated as such.
If you have natural immunity to Covid, there is no reason whatsoever you should be required to get the vaccine. None.
But of course the anti-science assholes calling the shots these days just ignore it all. VAX UP, OR ELSE! GET YOUR VACCINE SHOTS, DAMNIT!
They’re like robots who can only say the same thing over and over again.
“I’m 25 years old and in great health, I don’t think I should be forced to get the vaccine–“
GET YOUR SHOTS!
“I’ve already had Covid, I have natural immunity, I shouldn’t have to get—“
GET YOUR SHOTS!
If any sort of Covid passport is to be implemented–and I am firmly, unequivocally and absolutely against vaccine passports–then, in a truly science-based society, it should be for people who have had and recovered from Covid, not for people who have gotten a vaccine shot.
But of course none of this shit is based on real science at all. It’s all based on fake Science™–politicized Science™, corporate-funded Science™, etc.
There’s more to the court ruling, too. The judges believe it “likely exceeds the government’s authority”:
Now, obviously I believe it should be illegal for the government to force you to get a vaccine–or any medical procedure, for that matter.
But I don’t know if it is illegal, or unconstitutional. I am not a legal expert by any means, so I could be completely wrong here, but I believe the Supreme Court has already ruled in the past that the government can compel someone to get a medical procedure done.
In 1927, in the case “Buck v. Bell,” the Supreme Court ruled that the state had to power to forcibly sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck. This was at the height of the “eugenics” craze among the elite–an idea the elites either only pretended to abandon or that they are now seemingly starting to re-embrace.
Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the infamous decision:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Holmes’ words today are shockingly cruel, and probably they even were at the time, but that’s how the elites viewed the masses back then. They probably still feel the same way today, if we’re being honest.
But what really scares me is that last part: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”
Holmes was citing a 1905 Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the high court ruled that states had the power to enforce compulsory vaccination laws.
Neither Buck v. Bell nor Jacobson v. Massachusetts have ever been overturned. They are still the law of the land to this day.
This is some scary shit.
However, I will point out three things about the Jacobson decision that could be reason for hope:
- Jacobson established the power for states to enforce compulsory vaccinations, not the federal government. And that’s why the appeals court decision in the tweet above says, “The Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic activity that falls squarely within the States’ police power.” The individual 50 states, not the federal government, can impose vaccine mandates under the Jacobson ruling. That’s an important point.
- The next important point is that Jacobson only applies to legislatively-enacted compulsory vaccination. In other words, real, actual laws. Not “mandates”, or OSHA rules. The holding states: “The police power of a state must be held to embrace at least such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment to protect public health and safety.” It has to be done independently, by bills, passed by the individual state legislatures and signed into law by the individual governors. Not by executive fiat.
- The actual law being challenged in Jacobson stated that all residents of Cambridge, Massachusetts (it wasn’t even a state-level law) had to be vaccinated or revaccinated against Smallpox in the face of a growing outbreak, or else face a $5 fine. While the online inflation calculator only goes back to 1913, and back then $5 was equal to about $140 in today’s money, we can assume it was pretty similar in 1905. That was what was at stake in Jacobson. It was not a case where people would lose their jobs–and also be rendered completely unemployable going forward–if they didn’t get the legally required vaccine. There’s a big difference between a fine for not getting vaccinated and losing your job for not getting vaccinated.
So this is why there’s reason to hope that this vaccine mandate business is resolved in a just and freedom-affirming manner when it inevitably makes its way to the Supreme Court.
One final thing I must point out is that not even two weeks ago, on October 29, the Supreme Court dismissed, by a 6-3 vote, an emergency appeal for injunction by Maine healthcare workers who were seeking religious exemption from a state vaccine mandate that applied only to healthcare workers. The case was called Does v. Mills.
Wikipedia describes the Maine case as “the closest COVID-related lawsuit to a direct challenge to Jacobson.”
And it was dismissed by the Supreme Court. That’s concerning.
However, there are some important facts about this case that should be considered here:
- The only three justices that supported the health care workers were Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas. This shouldn’t be a surprise, as they’re the three most reliable justices on the court. Gorsuch even wrote an 8-page dissent, which was co-signed by both Alito and Thomas, in which he sympathized with the applicants, one of whom had “already lost her job for refusing to betray her faith.” From this dissent, we can be pretty confident of where Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas stand on the matter, which is good news.
- The two other Justices we thought we could rely on, Kavanaugh and Barrett, unfortunately sided with the corrupt Establishment libs, Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. But this may not be much cause for concern, as Barrett and Kavanaugh wrote that they only agreed with the Court’s decision to not intervene in the matter because the case was brought before the high court through the emergency docket. Kavanaugh and Barrett said the emergency docket was not the proper place to resolve the case.
- And that’s a key point here: the Supreme Court did not expressly rule in favor of, or affirm, the state of Maine’s vaccine ruling. The Court merely declined to litigate the case. So we should not lose heart here and assume that Kavanaugh and Barrett are lost. Still, though, it is at least slightly concerning that Amy Coney Barrett, who had so much made of her Catholic faith during her confirmation hearings, basically told the Maine health workers seeking a religious exemption to go pound sand.
Any Supreme Court decision on the vaccine mandates will likely be a 5-4 decision, given that the 4 libs on the court are completely corrupt beyond all hope. They’re all probably “GET YOUR SHOTS, FOLKS” robots as well.
It’s probably all going to hinge on Kavanaugh and Barrett. So we’ll see if Trump made the right decision in appointing them. Kavanaugh in particular would do well to remember just how abhorrently awful the media and the Democrats in Congress were to him during his confirmation hearings. He should be more than willing to strike down this vaccine mandate bullshit based on that experience alone. But who knows.