Why are you dumping on the judge who did her job correctly??
Constitutionalist judges should not be expected to expand a suit beyond what was brought before them so they can set law that would please you.
You mean like Roe v. Wade?
Where the Supreme Court invalidated the laws of 50 states on abortion and instituted their own law of trimesters to replace them?
The Supreme Court is noted for hearing cases like this one which review established precedent, especially those that affect a large class of people.
The issue is state law v. personal freedom.
All Barrett had to do was to refer the case to her fellow Justices—a very simple thing. They could reject to hear it as well, but at least there was consideration.
Now that people’s lives and livelihoods are being affected coast to coast, it is certainly worth a hearing of the Court.
But she thought otherwise.
But then, we know they only want to rule to create new rights, not to defend old ones.
The Indiana students’ case could have been argued under different grounds, but the central issue would still be the same.
Although a public (state) university, it is the recipient of Federal funds.
Is discrimination of Unvaccinated students allowed under the 14th Amendment?
It is a Federal issue.
Soon, states and even the Federal government will mandate the “vaccine” and boosters for everyone.
Wonder if the Court will wake up then?