Posted on 11/05/2021 8:31:36 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Thus, by having the testing alternative, Bidet can argue that, like in Jacobson, there is an alternative to getting these shots. You know, those things that, unlike the smallpox vaccine in 1905, haven't been around for a while.
There is a SmartNews Salon story that says ERs are getting flooded with conditions that aren’t given standard diagnostic names.
Jacobson vrs Mass specifically refers to the court needs to show deference to a State legislative authority
It has no bearing on a Federal Executive order attempting to extralegilsatively expand a Government Agencies authority into a whole new area of enforcement. There is no legislative base to anchor this mandate on. It all make believe and wishful thinking
The Leftist blabbering squad in the Lying Media likes to throw this case out there with zero actually understanding of what it actually says.
The inconsistency of course is that ANYBODY can have Covid. Well, maybe a few people have some total immunity.
So BESIDES wear-the-mask-all-the-time we should just consider: How about semi-weekly covid testing.
THINK OF THE LIVES IT WILL SAVE. (Laffing my Nigerian butt off!!)
Why does a “fully vaccinated” (whatever that means) worker, who according to the CDC can spread COVID-19 as easily as an unvaccinated person, not have to get tested as frequently? How does a worker who receives the J&J or Moderna vax fall under the same classification in the EO as someone who was vaccinated with the only FDA approved vaccine? If this is such a grave threat why did this order take so long and why is the first EO deadline being postponed?
No EOs, not made up expansion of Government regulatory authority with no legal basis for their action. Jacobson vrs Mass specifically refers to STATE LAWS. Legislative action duly taken by appropriate legislative bodies.
There were only a small number of vaccines available in 1905 - smallpox, rabies, typhoid, plague and diptheria and one other.
As I remember the case Jacobson had already been vaccinated and had a bad reaction. It was probably against smallpox.
Secondly, I see this stupid monstrosity as just one more affirmation to support the wise decision I made in June 2020 to shut down my company’s office and go to a 100% work-from-home arrangement for my staff. I don’t give a crap if any of them are “vaccinated,” and I never will.
OSHA, I would like to report that Wal-Mart is endangering its employees by letting unvaccinated customers into its stores.
The vaccinated employees will clock out and then interact with unmasked, unvaccinated persons.
Employment mask mandates are silly.
This rule is arbitrary.
The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.
Can the unvaccinated get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
Can the vaccinated also get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
We know this because both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are showing up to the hospitals ER.
So the distinction between the two has no difference. The testing requirement should apply to all employees.
This rule is arbitrary.
The term arbitrary describes a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.
Can the unvaccinated get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
Can the vaccinated also get Covid, and/or be hospitalized, and or suffer long term damage from Covid? yes.
We know this because both the vaccinated and unvaccinated are showing up to the hospitals ER.
So the distinction between the two has no difference. The testing requirement should apply to all employees.
"Jacobson, standing by itself, will not support a vaccine mandate. If the state or federal governments wish to forcibly vaccinate people, they will have to rely on Buck v. Bell. That anticanonical case upheld the state's power to forcibly perform medical procedures on people to promote the public good. Roe v. Wade favorably cited Buck to support this proposition. In Roe, Justice Blackmun contended, the state retains the authority to force a woman to maintain a pregnancy for, among other reasons, to "protect[] potential life." Justice Blackmun explained that "[t]he Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right" "to do with one's body as one pleases." To support this proposition, Justice Blackmun cited two cases, with one-word parentheticals: "Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 47 S.Ct. 584, 71 L.Ed. 1000 (1927) (sterilization)."
A vaccinated Wal-Mart cashier will have hundreds of times more interactions with unvaccinated people than would a typical vaccinated office worker.
It also hangs on the differences between LEGISLATIVE and EXECUTIVE power.
The Executive cannot write law.
Did the Virginia statute which authorized sterilization deny Buck the right to due process of the law and the equal protection of the laws as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
that was a state law not federal...
“It has no bearing on a Federal Executive order...]
There is no executive order. Biden said it, but never issued an EO.
OSHA is acting in response to a speech. Both Biden and OSHA can kiss my ass.
I blame the vaxxers. If they weren’t such wussy weak sheep, this would never be happening.
Jacobson v Massachusetts was not about the federal government. It was about state government (specifically the state legislature).
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.