I wish I was referring to the track above but I'm not. Yesterday's SCOTUS oral arguments was painful to listen to. We had court justices that made statements of "fact" that were not only not facts at all, such as "750 million new cases" (said by Bryer) which is impossible as there are only 330 million people in the US IN TOTAL, but that weren't even a part of the facts put into evidence by either party.
You had Sotomayor who made the absolute ludicrous claim that there were 100,000 children in ICU for COVID when there are barely 1% lf that claim in hospital with OR from COVID.
The thought that there are people on the highest court of the land which supposedly would have the highest standards in the land who don't have the latest information on COVID and who couldn't even bother to do a simple Google search on the subject is downright depressing.
These are supposed to be some of the best legal minds from the top Ivy League institutions?
Really?
That matter aside I want to underscore the level of stakes here. It is something I have mentioned here many times and that I have consistently noted as absent from the various legal briefs I have read:
Does the individual have a inalienable right to decide, without consequences other than his own health, what medication he will or will not take or what medical procedures he will or will not undergo?
Does his body belong to him or does it belong to the state or some private employer?
Because you cannot simultaneously own your body and also be subject to the medical whims of the state or a private entity.
All of the arguments I've read and heard have been technical in nature. Does so and so agency have this right. Did they go through this process? Did Congress delegate this that or the other. Does the "emergency" authorize, such and such. If such and such exemption is listed then...
Etc. Etc. Etc.
The facts alone in the case sink this and every other mandate. As the latest variant has blown through the "vaxxed" population and broken every previous case record world wide has shown. The mandate's stated purpose: to stop or slow the spread, is DOA.
They cannot support such a case with the evidence on hand. That alone should sink this and every other mandate. If they don't then that means any agency or private party can make any mandate they like regardless of whether it actually serves a purpose.
That the so-called vaccines reduce symptoms should be another nail in it's coffin. No one would take a NyQuil mandate seriously. Imagine that your boss or the state mandated that you take NyQuil because you might be sick and that by taking NyQuil you will have less symptoms and therefore are less likely to miss work.
Exactly.
But the evidence shows that this is exactlly what these mandates are. State and private companies playing doctor (without a license) on what you should take if you fall ill.
Again though, that is all "technicalities". The main point is do you have the right to refuse without retaliation? That answer should be an easy yes but I'm not convinced these justices understand that. Not even the "conservative" ones.
The other reason this should be an easy decision is that these vaccines are clearly experimental. If you got the childhood vaccines there was (and is) a schedule. You get one set, then another set and there is a set time between them and a set dose and then you're done. When it comes to the COVID "vaccines" they first said "1 (J&J) or 2 and done". They even briefly claimed that once taken the individual could not get infected OR transmit. Shortly thereafter, they changed their tune on that.
Then they went onto Boosters with some countries on booster number 4 and others planning out to booster number 6. Nobody in these health agencies have any idea what is going on or what to expect. On that basis alone we know that this entire "vaccination" push is at best experimental.
Again, do you as an individual have the inalienable right to decline to be experimented on? That should be an easy "Yes" and yet I am not confident in the least bit that these judges even see this. There shouldn't be a liberal or conservative view on this. This should be fundamentally understood. But since it is clear that even easily accessible and fundamental facts such as it being impossible to have 750 million new cases in the US, is lost on these judges we cannot be confident that the court will decide *in the manner* they need to,
The other catch here is that from what I've heard and read, even if the court strikes down the federal mandates, which is again a "technical" matter, they are still in favor of and apparently accepting the argument that the states have such power. Hence, it may be the case that an adverse ruling for the fed simply means that the people affected have merely jumped out of the fire and INTO the frying pan.
This would particularly be the case in "blue" states that are the most authoritarian but it does leave "red' states vulnerable at every election cycle. So for example, DeSantis may be hostile to mandates in Florida, but all it would take is a single Democrat governorship victory and that "safe haven" is gone.
So yes the stakes are very high here. A failure to state clearly the individual's right to decline medical treatment without threats against their person and livelihoods will leave the door open to states and private parties regardless of whether these particular federal mandates are upheld.