And they all rejoiced, for Justice was served.
Late last week, the Supreme Court of the United States made a very good decision in the eyes of many freedom loving Americans, overturning a Colorado ruling that would have prevented The Donald from appearing on the presidential ballot. It was so obviously wrong that even non-biologist Justice Ketjani Jackson found for Trump.
This was a good result but we must not forget the historically terrible decision to uphold the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers in Biden v. Missouri. I shouldn’t even say “we must not forget” since at the time it was a decision few paid attention to because they were too busy celebrating the "win" vs. OSHA.
Sometimes the law is just too obvious to flaunt; this does not make the Supreme Court allies of the people.
In Biden vs. Missouri, both Kavanaugh and Roberts, two "conservative" judges joined Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer in the per curiam decision using reasoning that would see you laughed out of any high school debate class.
For starters, they cited two verifiable falsehoods about the vaccine:
• "spread is more likely when healthcare workers are unvaccinated"
• "a COVID–19 vaccine mandate will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus (reiterating) and transmit it to their patients."
In August 2022, we knew both of these claims to be unequivocally false.
The majority also found that the decision to mandate the vaccine was made with careful consideration of prior infection, and upheld the ruling that natural immunity did not exempt healthcare workers from the mandate.
What did they base this on? In Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co (43), it is stated that a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Basically, the HHS said they made the decision with careful consideration, and the Supreme Court is bound by caselaw to believe the agency.
We know this careful consideration did not happen because the science was and always has been unequivocal in that prior infection is durable, long-lasting and much more effective than the vaccine at preventing transmission or being infected. This was known prior to 2022, prior to 2020 even.
Of course, the more obvious reason is that unlike prior infection, the vaccines neither prevent transmission nor infection.
What legal institution could possibly have greater access to medical information than the Supreme Court of the United States? Yet, this fundamental understanding of disease transmission was willfully ignored by citing a case that instructed the Supreme Court to “believe” government agency.
That doesn’t even cover the entirety of the monumental deficiency of reasoning put forth by the court. Not even close.
The per curiam decision also cited "vaccination requirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America," and that "healthcare workers and public-health organizations overwhelmingly support" the requirement."
The ubiquity or popularity of an issue has no litigious quality with regards to the constitutionality of a law or mandate, or anything the Supreme Court hears. It's a child's reasoning that our parents used to respond with “if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you jump in after them?”
And for the most absolutely, preposterously, unfathomably absurd reason, the Court agreed that "fear of exposure” to the virus “from unvaccinated health care staff can lead patients to themselves forgo seeking medically necessary care,” creating a further “ris[k] to patient health and safety.”
They quite literally used the idea that a person’s being scared as precedent for mandating an experimental drug manufactured by criminals.
The Supreme Court of the United States used falsehoods and juvenile reasoning to enforce unconstitutional medical mandates. Don't forget that while you're owning the libs.
Read the decision here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/600us1r56_1o13.pdf