Decided on narrow technical grounds to appease certain powerful institutions SCOTUS failed to debate the key Constitutional issues raised by these cases
In my 35 years as a health care worker (not direct patient care, Pharmacy staff), I’ve called out sick maybe 4 times in all those years. I am blessed with a naturally robust immune system, for which I am grateful. I am 60 years old. I take good care of myself and have no comorbidities for Covid. Yet back in January and February of 202 I took two doses of the Moderna vaccine. Many factors were weighed in that decision, not the least was that it was mandated by my employer. But I realize now I really had no of understanding about the MRNA technology and the study data and conclusions drawn. I was assured by colleagues it was both safe and effective.
Fast forward to today, my employer (a large California healthcare system) is mandating all employees that enter the hospital take the booster by February 1st or they will be terminated.
In my personal risk benefits calculation, which at this point in the pandemic, shows no benefit, and concerns me for potential harm. I am told I can for “legitimate medical reasons” request an exemption. All I have to do is have a physician sign a form stating that by January 31st. I do not have a personal physician as I am very healthy! So I’m at a loss to find a physician in the Bay Area that would attest to my exemption request.
All of this is quite upsetting as I need my job and do not wish to loose it, but neither do I want to submit my robust immune system to possibly endless Covid MRNA vaccinations.
I fear my job is lost and I’m feeling quite hopeless about the entire situation. So all this is to say it’s great that SCOTUS shot down the OSHA mandate but as a (most likely former) healthcare worker I’m at a loss as to why I have no say in my own healthcare decisions. I am surly not alone.
I don't think the courts - even the supreme court - are a match for the vast forces aligned with the vaccination campaign - mandates - vaccine passports. Other solutions are needed. In my view, democracy itself has sort of been hacked - once enough of the information highway is controlled - democracy is sort of meaningless.
how do you find a AG or distric attorney who is willing to stand up for the people? That has been the big problem as well. David Martin has hard conclusive evidence that in a jury trial would convict fauci of gain of function, crimes of conspiracy and sedition and other crimes. it was given to Rand Paul and other AG's, crickets. I would love to sue my employer for discrimination on the testing but i cant find a lawyer to argue this in court. and i have reached out to the CHD for help but they are busy with unmasking the kids which is a noble cause as well. Tom Devore is helping the kids win against these school boards on quarantine and masks that are public but can't do anything for private schools. This has come up in our state legislature as well institution represent more people so when they send in their witness slips for legislation they have state and county health agencies and hospitals and pediatricians lining up as proponents to destroy our liberty and and get rich from pharma dollars on the opponents side we have joe a and jane citizen signing up as opposes out numbering the health departments 50:1 or more and yet its the institutions the representatives note when they cast the vote to pass the bad bills we the people are dead set against. no lawyer steps up to take up the injustice we just have to wait to vote next time to get a change. they are all bought.
And, they could have made it really easy on all parties by merely invoking the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, and innumerable other national and international laws and legal precedents. "We hereby annul, reject, and aggressively fart in the general direction* of all edicts, mandates and requirements whatsoever that force or coerce citizens to submit to medical experimentation, blah, blah, blah..." Someone else needs to compose the legalese. After all, aren't the most important international treaties, laws, and agreements for universal application everywhere and in all circumstances? They were not intended merely as loose guidelines for easy times, but were supposed to especially apply and be rigorously adhered to even in the most trying of times, so that "never again will we commit such abominations"
The Supreme Court ruled so narrowly and myopically because it, too, is a completely captured governmental body. In the authoritarian Global Public-Private Partnership hierarchy, the SCOTUS is merely a nation-state-level enforcer of policies dictated to it from global-governance entities that operate at much higher tiers. And when it comes to compulsory injections, it's clear what global governance wants: to "vaccinate" the world (as a means to larger totalitarian ends). The Court's temporary stay of OSHA's mandate, therefore, is merely a way for the SCOTUS to fulfill its role as a policy enforcer while projecting (false) deference to the Constitution (the latter being necessary because the Court can't give away the whole game at once).
My reaction is that this is no different a "response" than what SCOTUS did toward the election fraud cases. Hell, they even said TX and other states had no standing in suits against CA and NY. WTH? That means no court has jurisdiction - you're just screwed if another state wants to screw you.
Then there was the "moot" ruling because the election was "over." What? If I am killed by negligence (non-vaccine, since they won't address that law either), my estate can win in court and get huge dollars. But not possible to reverse a fraudulent election? And you won't even see any actual evidence?
The election fraud lack of evidence being allowed in court and not discussing data related to "vaccines" is the same thing: a cop out.
And why did no one argue that it couldn't stand because the CDC had to change the definition of vaccine to get the actual medical TREATMENT to "meet" the legal definition covered by the 1986 act?
I would like to know your thoughts on Cruzan v Missouri Supreme Court decision that gives precedent to right of competent person to refuse "treatment' as a means to settle the mandates constitutionality question. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/497/261) In this interview https://brandnewtube.com/watch/must-watch-dr-sherri-tenpenny-amp-dr-david-martin_UUKxwiYj5tSND57.html Dr. David Martin argues the Mrna injection is a 'treatment' based on Pharma's own original SEC filing and EUA application. He argues Cruzan is stronger than Jacobson. Since the definition of vaccine changed after the filing I don't know how the argument would succeed or fail. Please hear Dr. David Martin out at min marker 18:40 of the link provided above. Also follow @FrontlineFlash on Twitter who have recently promoted Cruzan decision for the ultimate showdown. Thanks. I'm new to your work but subscribed after reading your first thoughts on this.
I don't love Cruzan as a precedent. Euthanasia and the right to die is so fraught and the details are different enough that justices can just claim that it is not analogous.
Freedom of speech surely gives me the freedom to say no.
The "right to be secure in my person" surely gives me control over what goes into my body.
"Equal protection under the law" surely means that if private sector employees can say no then healthcare workers can say no too.
All of those are stronger Constitutional grounds than any particular prior case, in my opinion.
Individuals should be fully informed that there is no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine! ZERO safe and effective vaccines! It would be great if all humans regarded all life as sacred and behaved accordingly.
Great points, Thanks. The courts, including the Supreme Court have been co-opted by the corporate-political power structure. Just think of everything you have come to realize as possible in the post Covid era, including the most outrageous anti-scientific/illogical mandates, orders etc, and ask yourself would this be possible if we had a shred of integrity left in any institution in our country? It is not possible!
Excellent article, thank you. I’m afraid the events show not only the rot within the systems described, but the influence on it of other, greater powers. The only thing left to find out is if the frogs will ever notice that the water is boiling.
As an Eastern European, what strikes me as odd is the importance you give to your Supreme Court: It feels authoritarian. It feels like an *old-fashioned* authoritarianism. Also, it appears unrealistic, because you rightly observe that we're in the midst of a crisis that is profound and pervasive, worldwide. Looking back at world's history, the number of profound societal crisis that have been resolved by legal means is very small, and arguably it can be - zero.
Also puzzling is your insistence of an existence of "a new and novel virus." Given that you're a sophisticate, it's strange that you don't stop to notice that the notion of a new and novel virus of a very well-known family of coronaviruses... is pretty oxymoronic. Nor do you find the book "Virus Mania" compelling, nor numerous other arguments that challenge the claim of a "new and novel virus." Strange.
I can't find the imperfections in your article. I believe this would be a complex issue if either of the two vaccines I know of that are currently mandated by healthcare systems (covid and flu) provided sterilizing immunity, but if they provided sterilizing immunity, we wouldn't need to mandate them. It is a relatively simple issue if you know anything about how these two vaccines work (or don't work) and their downsides, which the CDC already acknowledges for the flu vaccine and will ultimately have to for the covid vaccines. Every time a person says, "But healthcare workers never complained about the annual flu shot requirement," my response is, "I hope they will now!"
I agree with you that even without that "honest examination of the scientific evidence" you discuss, mandating what someone puts in their body is unconstitutional. I like to try to imagine instances where I might disagree here, but ultimately I can't think of a scenario in which it's moral to remove the rights of a segment of the population because of their occupation. Ultimately, these kinds of mandates appear to be self-defeating, though few like to admit that as a big reason for the current healthcare crisis.
Meanwhile in Barbaric China https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXdU3IfToOY
In my 35 years as a health care worker (not direct patient care, Pharmacy staff), I’ve called out sick maybe 4 times in all those years. I am blessed with a naturally robust immune system, for which I am grateful. I am 60 years old. I take good care of myself and have no comorbidities for Covid. Yet back in January and February of 202 I took two doses of the Moderna vaccine. Many factors were weighed in that decision, not the least was that it was mandated by my employer. But I realize now I really had no of understanding about the MRNA technology and the study data and conclusions drawn. I was assured by colleagues it was both safe and effective.
Fast forward to today, my employer (a large California healthcare system) is mandating all employees that enter the hospital take the booster by February 1st or they will be terminated.
In my personal risk benefits calculation, which at this point in the pandemic, shows no benefit, and concerns me for potential harm. I am told I can for “legitimate medical reasons” request an exemption. All I have to do is have a physician sign a form stating that by January 31st. I do not have a personal physician as I am very healthy! So I’m at a loss to find a physician in the Bay Area that would attest to my exemption request.
All of this is quite upsetting as I need my job and do not wish to loose it, but neither do I want to submit my robust immune system to possibly endless Covid MRNA vaccinations.
I fear my job is lost and I’m feeling quite hopeless about the entire situation. So all this is to say it’s great that SCOTUS shot down the OSHA mandate but as a (most likely former) healthcare worker I’m at a loss as to why I have no say in my own healthcare decisions. I am surly not alone.
I don't think the courts - even the supreme court - are a match for the vast forces aligned with the vaccination campaign - mandates - vaccine passports. Other solutions are needed. In my view, democracy itself has sort of been hacked - once enough of the information highway is controlled - democracy is sort of meaningless.
Consider: Proposed indictments could invalidate the EUA. Prove that felonies were committed prior to EUA hence all mandate arguments become moot. The AGs and Solicitor Generals had this evidence prior to SCOTUS arguments and did not read or shamefully ignored , failing humanity. https://rumble.com/vsu7u2-doctor-dave-martin-a-simple-practical-and-actionable-plan-to-save-this-nati.html specifically min marker 6:00. and here is the proposed indictment doc that enumerate the felonies. https://www.davidmartin.world/attorney-general-document/
how do you find a AG or distric attorney who is willing to stand up for the people? That has been the big problem as well. David Martin has hard conclusive evidence that in a jury trial would convict fauci of gain of function, crimes of conspiracy and sedition and other crimes. it was given to Rand Paul and other AG's, crickets. I would love to sue my employer for discrimination on the testing but i cant find a lawyer to argue this in court. and i have reached out to the CHD for help but they are busy with unmasking the kids which is a noble cause as well. Tom Devore is helping the kids win against these school boards on quarantine and masks that are public but can't do anything for private schools. This has come up in our state legislature as well institution represent more people so when they send in their witness slips for legislation they have state and county health agencies and hospitals and pediatricians lining up as proponents to destroy our liberty and and get rich from pharma dollars on the opponents side we have joe a and jane citizen signing up as opposes out numbering the health departments 50:1 or more and yet its the institutions the representatives note when they cast the vote to pass the bad bills we the people are dead set against. no lawyer steps up to take up the injustice we just have to wait to vote next time to get a change. they are all bought.
And, they could have made it really easy on all parties by merely invoking the Nuremberg Code and the Helsinki Declaration, and innumerable other national and international laws and legal precedents. "We hereby annul, reject, and aggressively fart in the general direction* of all edicts, mandates and requirements whatsoever that force or coerce citizens to submit to medical experimentation, blah, blah, blah..." Someone else needs to compose the legalese. After all, aren't the most important international treaties, laws, and agreements for universal application everywhere and in all circumstances? They were not intended merely as loose guidelines for easy times, but were supposed to especially apply and be rigorously adhered to even in the most trying of times, so that "never again will we commit such abominations"
*from Monty Python and the Holy Grail
(difficult with black robes on)
The Supreme Court ruled so narrowly and myopically because it, too, is a completely captured governmental body. In the authoritarian Global Public-Private Partnership hierarchy, the SCOTUS is merely a nation-state-level enforcer of policies dictated to it from global-governance entities that operate at much higher tiers. And when it comes to compulsory injections, it's clear what global governance wants: to "vaccinate" the world (as a means to larger totalitarian ends). The Court's temporary stay of OSHA's mandate, therefore, is merely a way for the SCOTUS to fulfill its role as a policy enforcer while projecting (false) deference to the Constitution (the latter being necessary because the Court can't give away the whole game at once).
My reaction is that this is no different a "response" than what SCOTUS did toward the election fraud cases. Hell, they even said TX and other states had no standing in suits against CA and NY. WTH? That means no court has jurisdiction - you're just screwed if another state wants to screw you.
Then there was the "moot" ruling because the election was "over." What? If I am killed by negligence (non-vaccine, since they won't address that law either), my estate can win in court and get huge dollars. But not possible to reverse a fraudulent election? And you won't even see any actual evidence?
The election fraud lack of evidence being allowed in court and not discussing data related to "vaccines" is the same thing: a cop out.
And why did no one argue that it couldn't stand because the CDC had to change the definition of vaccine to get the actual medical TREATMENT to "meet" the legal definition covered by the 1986 act?
Everything about this country is corrupt.
I would like to know your thoughts on Cruzan v Missouri Supreme Court decision that gives precedent to right of competent person to refuse "treatment' as a means to settle the mandates constitutionality question. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/497/261) In this interview https://brandnewtube.com/watch/must-watch-dr-sherri-tenpenny-amp-dr-david-martin_UUKxwiYj5tSND57.html Dr. David Martin argues the Mrna injection is a 'treatment' based on Pharma's own original SEC filing and EUA application. He argues Cruzan is stronger than Jacobson. Since the definition of vaccine changed after the filing I don't know how the argument would succeed or fail. Please hear Dr. David Martin out at min marker 18:40 of the link provided above. Also follow @FrontlineFlash on Twitter who have recently promoted Cruzan decision for the ultimate showdown. Thanks. I'm new to your work but subscribed after reading your first thoughts on this.
I don't love Cruzan as a precedent. Euthanasia and the right to die is so fraught and the details are different enough that justices can just claim that it is not analogous.
Freedom of speech surely gives me the freedom to say no.
The "right to be secure in my person" surely gives me control over what goes into my body.
"Equal protection under the law" surely means that if private sector employees can say no then healthcare workers can say no too.
All of those are stronger Constitutional grounds than any particular prior case, in my opinion.
I'll check it out! Thank you for your comments, these links, and subscribing! 🙌
What this con-vid taught me was that both parties have their own ways of demanding to control what you can do with your body.
They're both authoritarian and I think more are seeing this mess was caused by the Patriot act which gave emergency powers to governors etc.
Also there's no deadly virus and gain of function is pretty much them messing with vaccines, plus why would China let their enemy in their bio labs?
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/gain-of-function-garbage:c
Individuals should be fully informed that there is no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine! ZERO safe and effective vaccines! It would be great if all humans regarded all life as sacred and behaved accordingly.
Great points, Thanks. The courts, including the Supreme Court have been co-opted by the corporate-political power structure. Just think of everything you have come to realize as possible in the post Covid era, including the most outrageous anti-scientific/illogical mandates, orders etc, and ask yourself would this be possible if we had a shred of integrity left in any institution in our country? It is not possible!
To summarize:
1- SCOTUS did not consider material facts germane to use of the vaccine
2- SCOTUS did not consider the constitutional or human right to biological autotomy
3- SCOTUS did not consider the thorny issues inherent in the usage of 'police powers' or executive power for achieving a public health agenda.
So what exactly did they consider worth consideration for making their decisions?
Excellent article, thank you. I’m afraid the events show not only the rot within the systems described, but the influence on it of other, greater powers. The only thing left to find out is if the frogs will ever notice that the water is boiling.
As an Eastern European, what strikes me as odd is the importance you give to your Supreme Court: It feels authoritarian. It feels like an *old-fashioned* authoritarianism. Also, it appears unrealistic, because you rightly observe that we're in the midst of a crisis that is profound and pervasive, worldwide. Looking back at world's history, the number of profound societal crisis that have been resolved by legal means is very small, and arguably it can be - zero.
Also puzzling is your insistence of an existence of "a new and novel virus." Given that you're a sophisticate, it's strange that you don't stop to notice that the notion of a new and novel virus of a very well-known family of coronaviruses... is pretty oxymoronic. Nor do you find the book "Virus Mania" compelling, nor numerous other arguments that challenge the claim of a "new and novel virus." Strange.
I can't find the imperfections in your article. I believe this would be a complex issue if either of the two vaccines I know of that are currently mandated by healthcare systems (covid and flu) provided sterilizing immunity, but if they provided sterilizing immunity, we wouldn't need to mandate them. It is a relatively simple issue if you know anything about how these two vaccines work (or don't work) and their downsides, which the CDC already acknowledges for the flu vaccine and will ultimately have to for the covid vaccines. Every time a person says, "But healthcare workers never complained about the annual flu shot requirement," my response is, "I hope they will now!"
I agree with you that even without that "honest examination of the scientific evidence" you discuss, mandating what someone puts in their body is unconstitutional. I like to try to imagine instances where I might disagree here, but ultimately I can't think of a scenario in which it's moral to remove the rights of a segment of the population because of their occupation. Ultimately, these kinds of mandates appear to be self-defeating, though few like to admit that as a big reason for the current healthcare crisis.