The problem is that:
A) this is not a vaccine—it is gene therapy, untested in human trials.
B) this is an emergency use authorization medicine, thus it CANNOT be mandated by anyone. It falls under the Nuremberg Code, which is codified in Federal law, making this ripe for consideration.
C) a decision could set a precedent affecting millions whose schooling and now livelihood is being threatened by out of control labcoat wearing technocrats.
Under any definition, this is NOT a vaccine.
Words mean something, and so should the law.
B) this is an emergency use authorization medicine, thus it CANNOT be mandated by anyone. It falls under the Nuremberg Code, which is codified in Federal law, making this ripe for consideration.
C) a decision could set a precedent affecting millions whose schooling and now livelihood is being threatened by out of control labcoat wearing technocrats.
Under any definition, this is NOT a vaccine.
Words mean something, and so should the law.
The problem is nothing you itemized is germane to the review requested of the USSC by the plaintiff.
The appeals court upheld the lower's court decision not to issue an emergency stay on the University's mandate citing a USSC decision that this is a state, not federal, issue.
Not finding an issue with logic or application of precedent, Barrett, et al, allowed the appeals court's decision not to issue an emergency stay to stand.
If the plaintiffs want to expand their suit they can amend it and return to the Courts.
Prior to this year the definition of a vaccine would not have included the mRNA so-called vaccines in use today. If you check the current Merriam Webster online dictionary, they have added a definition to include it. The left is able to simply change the definition of words anytime it wants, especially with the common use of online dictionaries. They do not even have to pay people to change books as in the book “1984”.