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 ...
Valid point. But if Congress has already passed legislation giving the executive such authority then 1905 would still apply.
This pdf document put out by Congressional Research deals with the Federal Executive authority starting on page 5.
State and Federal Authority to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccination April 2, 2021
Looks to me like there is some pretty broad authority already granted to the Executive by Congress.
I don't think the executive can mandate that everyone gets the shot, but it certainly looks like they can quarantine or limit people's ability to attend certain functions if they aren't vaccinated.
I'm not advocating a mandate. I'm just looking at the law and precedents. And I'm not a lawyer.
Got it
Once again you have your dogma and cannot be bothered with the inconvenient facts that render your dogma an absurdity.
A few years before that the Supreme Court upheld segregation. Might as well officially bring back segregation, right Mr. Maloney?
In a rational world, tests showing a level of anti-bodies in a person post a COVID illness equal to a person that has had the vaccine should be deemed sufficient to be enough to waive the vaccine requirement.
Federal Judge <> ignorant
I doubt seriously that the authority granted that is mentioned in that Congressional Research paper specifies a different treatment between FDA Approved and Emergency Use Authorization.
EUA basically means the FDA has ruled the benefits exceeds the risks. I could be wrong but I doubt a judge is going to sway a decision based om the distintion between Approved and EUA unless there is a distinction made in the laws granting executive authority.
Agreed but in a rational world, deeming natural immunity sufficient, should have been included in the Executive order.
Asking a judge to second guess an Executive Order on that basis is a long shot.
Asking a judge to use common sense and defend individual liberty is a long shot for sure!
Yeah, well the 1905 scotus ruling pretty clearly denied an individual liberty exemption to a vaccine mandate.
So the ask can't be based on individual liberty because the judge is bound to follow court precedent. It's got to be based on something like giving the vaccine to already recovered covid patients results in an outcome that is contrary to the goals of the public policy.
I doubt we have the science to make that case. And asking a judge to nitpik that is a long shot.
They should be pressuring the executive to make an exception. But getting to Joe in his basement movie set is also a long shot.
I think Fury’s point is that natural immunity is not better than vaccination for all diseases.
Rabies is the perfect example, as is Tetanus. Vaccine induced immunity is obviously better than being dead.
Smallpox is a very deadly disease, unlike covid.
And the vaccine was proven, not experimental operating under EUA.
They probably didn’t even have a way of measuring natural immunity back in 1905 either.
This ruling stinks. I hope she finds some funding in order to appeal somehow.
Article 6 – Consent
I and thousands of other Federal Employees are under the gun, here, so this sort of case is smack in my crosshairs.
It is my preliminary opinion that SCOTUS erred in suborning the Free Exercise Clause in Jacobson; the elemental human right of freedom of religion is, perhaps, THE DOMINANT THREAD in the story of how people of faith got from William Tyndale to a Bill of Rights, and derogation is all but absolutely forbidden. Exceptions include compelling State interest in consideration of the public health, but are to be interpreted restrictively, which Jacobsen DOES NOT.
A restrictive interpretation would permit derogation in consideration of the public health for a terrifying emergency like smallpox, which kills 30% across all demographics. The widespread, crippling threat of Polio would also pass the bar of restrictive interpretation. But measles, mumps, the flu, even COVID...? No. The bar simply cannot be set that low and retain the meaning of "interpreted restrictively."
Worse, there were no aborted fetal cell lines being used in vaccine development or testing in 1905, so adherents to religions that regard the unborn as living, individual human persons did not face that full-stop religious objection to the Court's denial of religious exemption under Jacobsen. This is absolutely NOT SO, anymore, and there is no injection presently available for COVIDV that does not have a connection to abortion. A few are in development, but that's a ship arriving to late to save a drowning witch.
At this hour, the denial of any religious exemption citing Jacobsen -- if the medical treatment in view involves medicines developed, manufactured, formulated, or tested using cell lines originating from aborted fetal tissue -- immediately discriminated against the protected right to Free Exercise, and this condition must force Supreme Court review.
To my mind, the Supreme Court needs to hear a case clearly aimed at the overbroad permission of vaccine mandates generally under Jacobsen without also requiring a route to religious exemption. In an age where any next drug can arise from the graves of the unborn, religious objectors must have access to exemption for their right of Free Exercise to be preserved to them whole, and Jacobson, as presently construed, admits to no such thing.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. This is just a current project of mine against the backdrop of present-day realities. Click on my screen name to take a look at my profile and see more of what I'm working on.
A vaccine if proven will work against a disease that doesn’t mutate. Rabies doesn’t mutate. Covid mutates in minutes once it enters the body. The original china virus is long gone likely never to return. Meaning any vaccine to cure the china virus is futile as it doesn’t exist in the wild.
Okay but I don’t see anything in the Nuremberg Code that distinguishes FDA EUA as “experimental” vs an FDA Approved vaccine as “non-experimental”.
You’re obviously thinking of it that way. But I could argue that an “approved” vaccine is still experimental for the first 10 or 20 years. Or I could argue that the trials that occurred before the EUA were experimental and that the EUA indicates it’s no longer experimental.
Don’t get me wrong, I see your point. There is certainly an “Experimental” aspect to the new vaccines. But as a “legal” definition, I don’t know that a vaccine under EUA is considered experimental for Nuremberg Code purposes.
I only recently got vaccinated, preferring to wait for more information. And I wouldn’t have done so then, if my odds of getting exposed to covid hadn’t gone up this fall when my daughter started teaching at a High School. So I certainly sympathize with anyone who is still on the fence about the new vaccines, for whatever reason.
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.