Posted on 10/10/2021 7:21:28 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
A federal judge on Oct. 8 denied a request to block Michigan State University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the basis of natural immunity.
An employee at the school, Jeanna Norris, filed a lawsuit against the mandate and asked a judge to intervene on the basis that she had already contracted COVID-19 and recovered. She presented two antibody tests showing her previous infection, and her doctors told her that she didn’t need to get the vaccine at this time.
Despite her natural immunity, Norris faces termination from the university for not complying with the school’s mandate that all students and staff get the shot unless they have a medical or religious exemption.
U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, declined her lawsuit. The mandate, Maloney said, didn’t violate her fundamental rights and pointed to a 1905 Supreme Court ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Yep. It's been broken for a long time unfortunately, and I don't think it will ever be fixed.
Well said.
good post!
One would think that natural immunity from prior Covid infection would count as a medical exemption.
The judge doesn’t think so. And I’ll bet his ruling is overturned because the 1905 case he cites has nothing to do with medical exemption due to natural immunity.
If you could show that receiving a vaccine subsequent to having covid, reduced the natural immunity, you might have a case that a judge could consider.
He got his saline. He now presses the poison.
This was pushing for a preliminary injunction to rule against the mandates altogether.
Judge said “Experts on both sides, tie goes to CDC guidance for now.”
I think the law firm screwed up, they could’ve had studies from Harvard and the New England Journal of Medicine, among others.
“Appointed by George W. Bush”
And rhymes with baloney.
Coincidence?
Resist, refuse and solidarity are the few hopes we have left.
That’s too general a statement. Example - rabies.
I don’t think you understood my post.
If you have natural immunity and you then get a vaccine, does that in any way eliminate, replace or reduce the natural immunity that you already had? Because if it doesn’t then I don’t see this judge being overruled.
Since the 1905 SCOTUS ruling eliminated the possibility of a religious exemption. And this judges ruling used the 1905 ruling to eliminate an exemption for natural immunity. Then the only way that I see you get a court to reverse that ruling, is by showing the vaccine actually reduces immunity for those already recovered.
It’s possible to make a case that since natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity, that the risks of taking the vaccine are unnecessary. But I’m guessing that was argued in this case and the judge didn’t buy it.
The judge is kicking the can down the road and KNOWS this asshattery will be overturned.
Good that he’s done it using a case with virtually nothing to do with the controversy before the court.
rabies doesn’t mutate into new variants. Apples and oranges
Nope
But if you had a judge that actually followed Jacobson Vrs Mass instead of interpreted it to fit their own bias, you wouldn’t need one
Jacobson Vrs Mass specifically sites the ruling based on a state legislated mandate. The Judge ignored the bulk of the SC decision to focus on two lines. Exactly what a political activist looking for a rational to end run the law would do.
Jacobson vrs Mass is absolutely inapplicable to a mandate imposed by Executive decree.
Not according to The Phaser! LOL
https://thephaser.com/2021/09/doomsday-virus-discovery-of-rabies-mutation-might-end-humanity/
Again you are twisting Jacobson Vr Mass to mean something it clearly does not.
The case specifically sites state legislative action as the underlying justification for its decision. It specifically sites the Courts deference to that legislative action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.