I hate asking the question, but nothing is guaranteed anymore. The fact that there are more Republican-appointed justices than not bodes well for inherent rights and freedom in 2022’s big cases, in particular the anon vaccine cases, but with Roberts the Squish and three neophyte Trump appointees coming into their own, anything is possible. As an interesting aside, the three surviving retired justices (O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter) all joined the ranks courtesy of Republican presidents and subsequently tilted leftward. Has any justice ever moved right? When it’s all said and done, the idea of an absolutely safe constitutional court is on par with the idea of an absolutely safe vaccine.
It is, of course, ridiculous to even think that the Supreme Court would even come close to upholding the mandates. What legal argument could be made to support it? There simply isn’t one; likewise for arguing for the medical need. The attorneys arguing against the mandate could highlight, among other things, that the vaccines are not even vaccines, they are closer to therapies. At that point, then, it would behoove the court to consider why other available – and much more robustly tested and understood – therapies like off-label use of repurposed drugs wouldn’t be more deserving of a medical mandate if one ever had to be considered.
On top of that, there is now a database from the largest experimental group in the history of mankind to show that the vaccines neither prevent illness, death, nor transmission. The most obvious question to ask of the sitting justices is in what world does a mandate for an injection make sense when it doesn’t work? If the original two-dose regimen failed, followed by a booster failure, all as the virus wanes in lethality anyways, then there is no medical argument for this unknown substance being formed into arms (and everywhere else that it migrates). Give the anemic legal and medical argument for unprecedented government intrusion and this case should be as one-sided as Penn swimming contests.
Of course, with cases like Dred Scott, Plessy, Roe, and so many others in its long history, the Supreme Court is clearly a well-intentioned but failure-prone body of fallible and misguidable human actors.
To be sure, the January 7th hearings on two vaccine mandate cases will not spell the absolute end of Covid hysteria. However, only one outcome will guarantee that it’s possible. If the court reaches a decision in favor of Biden’s mandates through penumbral reasoning or some other inventive legal procedure, it is hard to see American coming back from the abyss. Once set in stone that the federal government has the authority to demand of its citizenry any variety of unwanted hardship in order to secure employment and monetary compensation, as well as movement, the absence of any limiting principles forever dooms our future as free peoples.
On the other hand, the Court’s predicted siding with truth and justice, while not able to penetrate the millions of minds corrupted by mass psychosis, at least provides an avenue for liberty. Interestingly, it isn’t just the unvaccinated who stand to lose in this case. Countless millions of Americans who initially received the two-dose regimen (on the lie that it would work and on the salesmanship that they had to just “do their part”) want nothing to do with the prospect of future pokes. Even those that got a third round of juice are starting to ask themselves if the routine of bi- or tri-annual shots makes sense against the dual realization that they don’t work and that the current iteration of the virus doesn’t demand that most even need it. Each of these people stand to become just as unvaccinated as the original refuseniks with each new definitional rewrite.
Assuming the case strikes down the mandates, an area of academic interest will be seeing which, if any, of the justices sides with government tyranny. Should that happen, how will the rest of their decision-making be viewed when it is clear their entire judicial philosophy has been corrupted by leftist postmodernist thought. It is almost impossible to see how any future ruling from the highest bench in the country could ever be considered based on the constitutionality of a case if any of the justices voted for Biden’s executive overreach.
SourceFollow us in social media