The Supreme Court has agreed to take up two vaccine mandate cases — the one involving OSHA and the one for health care workers (CMS).
A third mandate, aimed at federal contractors, remains in a kind of legal limbo. The temporary injunction granted by a Georgia judge was recently upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether that decision will also be appealed to SCOTUS, and if so whether they will agree to hear it, remain to be seen.
However, according to Jenin Younes, an attorney with the New Civil Liberties Alliance and charter member of Team Reality, “It is likely that whatever decision [the court] makes about [the first two] mandates will affect the contractor one as well, since the principles are similar.”
So the importance of the upcoming arguments against the OSHA and CMS mandates cannot be overstated. They will almost certainly be for all the marbles.
Far be it from me to tell lawyers things they already know, much less what they ought to say or do. But you’ll have to forgive me if, after the ObamaCare and Obergefell fiascos, I’m not exactly brimming with confidence in our side’s ability to make winning arguments before the nation’s highest court.
It seems to me there are essentially two questions before the Court: Whether the federal government has the authority to mandate any vaccines, and if so, whether they have the authority to mandate these particular “vaccines” (hereafter referred to more accurately as “injections”).
The answer to the first question, I believe, is “maybe” or “it depends” — although there is, in fact, no precedent for such federal mandates. The two examples the pro-mandate forces like to cite are both problematic for them, in different ways.
The first is the 1905 Supreme Court decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the Court said the state could require citizens to take the smallpox vaccine.
That case poses at least two problems for mandaters. First, it involved a state mandate, not a federal one. Second, it upheld a law duly passed by the legislature — not an executive edict.
So Jacobson isn’t really a “precedent” at all, as it deals with a very different set of questions.
The other “precedent” often mentioned is the fact that, during the American Revolution, George Washington ordered his troops to be inoculated with a new smallpox vaccine.
Again, this is hardly the same thing. It applies to a relatively small group of people — soldiers — not to the general population. Moreover, the individuals in question, by virtue of enlisting, had already voluntarily placed themselves under the full and undisputed authority of their military commander.
In contrast, the vast majority of those affected by the Biden administration’s mandates have never ceded that kind of authority over their personal lives to the federal government. So there really is no precedent.
And yet precedent is not everything. New circumstances call for new responses, new court rulings, new laws. I’m sure we can all envision a public health crisis in which the federal government might need to step in — where a genuinely deadly virus is rampaging across the country, killing 20-30 percent of the population, including children.
If a vaccine existed that could stop such a virus in its tracks, we would all want everyone to take it and would probably feel the government was justified in making them — although, in a situation like that, the government probably wouldn’t have to. Everyone would be lining up.
Thus, the second question before the court is this: Does COVID-19 constitute that kind of emergency? And the answer is very clearly, “No.” Not even close.
Throughout this “pandemic,” sensationalistic case counts have been grossly exaggerated by mass testing on a scale never seen, using faulty, ill-suited tests, absurdly amplified, yielding an unacceptable percentage of false positives. Hospitals have obscene financial incentives to identify “COVID patients” and to blame the virus for as many deaths as possible, even in cases where it clearly played no role.
The “shocking” case and death statistics, in short, are fraudulent. This could easily be demonstrated to the court using the government’s own documents. But even accepting their outlandish numbers, COVID still doesn’t approach the kind of nightmare scenario described above. It hasn’t even killed one-quarter of one percent of the population, much less 20 or 30 percent (and hardly any children).
Moreover, the “vaccines,” in this case, are not really vaccines as we have always understood them. That can easily be deduced from the mere fact that the health authorities had to change the longstanding definition of “vaccine” in order to include these injections.
They do not, we now know, prevent people from becoming infected. They do not stop the transmission or arrest the spread of the virus. As a number of reputable scientists have argued, they might even be making things worse, through Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) and/or Original Antigenic Sin (OAS).
About the best we can say is that they might provide some personal protection against severe illness — although, as efficacy continues to wane, we may soon find they don’t even do that, anymore.
Given these facts — and they are facts, which a highly paid team of lawyers ought to be able to dig up easily and document thoroughly — no rational argument exists for federal mandates. There is no pressing health emergency worthy of turning the Constitution on its head, and even if there were, the measures the government has attempted to impose thus far would do nothing to alleviate it.
These arguments strike me as simple, obvious, straightforward, well-supported by evidence, and utterly compelling — in short, clear winners. I just hope and pray our side doesn’t screw them up, perhaps by being too clever by half.
The opinions expressed by the author are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of ThinkCivics.com.
This article was originally published by the American Thinker. Read the full article.
American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.
