save? the cases have not been heard. they have not been won or lost. emergency injunctions were denied. in either case, plaintiffs, if they prevail, can collect damages. there is no reason to grant injunction since remedy is available.
what hope? have you seen me express an opinion on either case? no. all i’ve done is correct your wrong assertions. if you want to project what the court will eventually decide… feel free.
JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS is outdated my friend!
Let me break the news to you about the article appearing in POLITICO, The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates. What is really surprising is its author fails to mention the case was decided well before the protection of “strict scrutiny” had been established in cases involving a government act which infringes upon a fundamental right. Pointing to JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS as controlling law today is absurd since it was not tested under today’s strict scrutiny standard.
Today, when a fundamental right is infringed upon by a government act, in order to pass the strict scrutiny test, (A) it must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose, (B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning, (C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.
The fact remains, NYC’s vaccine mandate has not survived the “strict scrutiny” test. Of course, one may argue that a government mandate which compels a person to allow a foreign substance to be injected into their body without their consent does not violate that person’s fundamental rights, and therefore the “strict scrutiny” standard protection is not available. But that argument would be absurd considering the Supreme Court, even in JACOBSON acknowledges the government has no power to vaccine people by force:
“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5.”
So, is it not time for the court to stop goofing off and apply the strict scrutiny standard to the vaccine mandate as applied to NYC’s teachers, and afford them the protection they deserve under strict scrutiny when a fundamental right hangs in the balance?
Surely there must be a way to accommodate NYC’s teachers while at the same time allegedly protecting their students. Do you not agree?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
He has no problem with the mandate. He told me that since the start of school they have only seen one case and that if we can make it through the fall and winter without a rise in cases that means that the pandemic here is over.
With all the new COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths among the fully vaccinated occurring around the country, I’m wondering if the vaccine itself has something to do with these cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
“Gov. Jim Justice announced Monday that, over the past eight weeks, there has been a 26% increase in new breakthrough cases, a 21% increase in breakthrough cases requiring hospitalization and a 25% increase in breakthrough deaths.”
I think at this stage of the game it is pretty certain COVID is here to stay for a very long time. We need to learn to live with it by treating it, and screw the endless vaccine crap.