[Blood of Tyrants]

So much for science. He goes all the way back to 1905 to find a reason to deny her her rights. Judges can be bought the same as politicians or scientists.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

We don’t believe in science.

[Gene Eric]

>> He goes all the way back to 1905 to find a reason to deny her her rights.

#ing scumbag

[MNJohnnie]

Total misapplication of the law. This is a Judge more worried about his PR with the Lying Media then the rule of law.

Jacobson vrs Mass specifically refers to the state legislature having this power. It has no bearing on a case of arbitrary executive action.

[mass55th]

A Federal Judge doesn’t have a license to practice medicine, or give advice about medical treatments.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

That 1905 SCOTUS ruling is completely irrelevant to COVID or any other bioweaponized pandemics.

[JoJo354]

This is just all so evil.

[Flick Lives]

“This Court must apply the law from the Supreme Court: Jacobson essentially applied rational basis review and found that the vaccine mandate was rational in ‘protect[ing] the public health and public safety,’” Maloney said in his order. “The Court cannot ignore this binding precedent.”

—

The judge is a moron who is fixated on the vaccine. The point of the vaccine is supposed to be immunity. This woman has immunity.

[skr]

Unwanted invasive procedures tend to violate one’s fundamental rights.

[eyeamok]

All Lawyers are scum
Most politicians are Lawyers by trade
All Judges are Lawyers in drag

[kiryandil]

No worries for him.

He got The Saline, like the rest of the Elites.

[Robert DeLong]

Appointed by George W. Bush

[inchworm]

Nother dumb bushie.

[OrangeHoof]

Madness. This should prove to everyone that this mandate is not benign and there is something more afoot than just health.

[Safrguns]

Appeal!

[Steve Van Doorn]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) had NOTHING to do with natural immunity. The judge ruled on forced vaccinations based on religious first amendment rights.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)
Jacobson argued that the smallpox vaccination law not only infringed on his religious liberty but also was arbitrary and capricious. The Court disagreed, writing that Jacobson’s individual right must give way to the “common good.”

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1824/jacobson-v-massachusetts

[Valpal1]

One would think that natural immunity from prior Covid infection would count as a medical exemption.

[grey_whiskers]

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.

[Sequoyah101]

Resist, refuse and solidarity are the few hopes we have left.

[MNJohnnie]

Got it

Once again you have your dogma and cannot be bothered with the inconvenient facts that render your dogma an absurdity.

[conservative98]

A few years before that the Supreme Court upheld segregation. Might as well officially bring back segregation, right Mr. Maloney?