Skip to comments.Judge strikes Biden's vax mandate — but not for the reason you might think: ere you have it, an answer unanticipated by pro- or anti-vaxxers
Posted on 12/02/2021 9:46:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In a 29-page order, U.S. district judge Gregory Van Tatenhove actually got it right on vaccine mandates — but not for reasons cited by either side of this contentious issue.
The George W. Bush nominee wrote, "This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are. Nor is this a case about whether the government, at some level and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines. It can."
Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove further made his case, writing, "The question presented here is narrow. Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no." Thus, he granted the preliminary injunction requested by Ohio's, Kentucky's, and Tennessee's attorneys general.
So there you have it: an answer unanticipated by pro- or anti-vaxxers. The rationale was too moderate for ardent vaccine opponents. But it also was too conservative for the unlimited vaccination–supporters.
This decision fits the textbook definition of diplomacy: getting an agreement signed by two parties that neither of them likes.
This isn't to say that private non-government vendor companies cannot stick it to their employees — literally. The ruling simply states that it is overreaching for the Executive Branch, for instance, to force all companies that accept even one dollar of Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements to toe the line.
It appears that it would have been impossible for major medical companies to stay in business if they had dared defy the mandate prior to this judge throwing them a lifeline.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors?”
Odd that they think this is an unanticipated question. It’s precisely the question. Delegation is not supposed to be an endrun around the Constitution allowing the President and his bureaucracy to write laws at their pleasure. The Federal Register is supposed to contain regulations that implement laws, not make them.
No, they are not effective as it has been scientifically demonstrated that the efficiency wears off in a few months and the individual is left WORSE off.
Sounds like the judge is saying the government can compel people to get the vaxx, but that the method they chose was incorrect?
I smell a rat.
The courts have no business trying to determine the effectiveness of the vaccines IMO. If the President has the authority to issue his order, it’s irrelevant how effective the vaccines are, even if they’re totally ineffective.
I think he’s saying any sort of mandate has to come through Congress, not solely from the Executive Branch.
But that authority to require citizens get vaccines:
1) The authority to mandate medical treatments is not in the Constitution so is limited to the States
2) Experimental (i.e EUA) drugs / vaccines, by LAW, can not be mandated
3) No drug or vaccine that has a high probability of harm to an individual can be mandated. You can't require a person to chop off their own hand or blind an eye or commit suicide.
4) Because of #3, the risk of medical harm must be evaluated on a case by case basis -AND- The person who carries the risk (patient) is the one who has to make the assessment.
5) I also assert that collective punishment (denial of services) is a form of Bill of Attainder and is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
This author is an utter moron. This is a weak response that get it right on legal ground while trying to appease the Leftist media machine.
This is a gutless judge trying to be on both sides. Want to see a Court that got it right? Read the 5th Circut court decision.
“This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are.”
> “This is not a case about whether vaccines are effective. They are.”
> “Nor is this a case about whether the government, at some level and in some circumstances, can require citizens to obtain vaccines. It can.”
Not if they aren’t proven effective which they haven’t been.
Judge is, like the law, an a$$.
But he deflected nicely, so will give him that.
“No, they are not effective as it has been scientifically demonstrated that the efficiency wears off in a few months and the individual is left WORSE off.”
That said, I will take any victory, based upon nearly any reasoning, which shuts down this egregious federal power grab of the last 20 months. They took our rights away one salami slice at a time, and that’s the only way that we’re going to get them back - sad and infuriating as that is.
On a slightly different note, Rush Limbaugh said for a long time that the Left (or the Dems) ALWAYS overreach, and the American public just as surely ALWAYS slaps them back, hard. This vaccine mandate crap is exactly the overreach - and it is even worse when you consider the lockdowns, shutting down schools and modifying voting laws to enable massive cheating. The American people (well, quite a number of them, certainly not all) have wised up to this power grab, and unless the Stupid Party once again snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, the 2022 election will be a tidal change on a par with the 1932 election. The process will be more complete when either Zombie Biden or Cameltoe Harris is massively schlonged by Trump in ‘24. Just my $0.02.
There is an established legal principal that states can impose vaccine mandates via their legilsatures
The point of law to attack this on is this is not a vaccine. It is an experimental gene therapy
“2) Experimental (i.e EUA) drugs / vaccines, by LAW, can not be mandated”
Of course the law shouldn’t support a political compromise but a strict interpretation of law and constitutionality.
“This is a gutless judge trying to be on both sides.”
Would you expect anything else from a GWB appointee?
The vaccine is not effective.
The vaccine is only a vaccine because they changed the definition of vaccine.
“The point of law to attack this on is this is not a vaccine. It is an experimental gene therapy”
Yes, that’s what these things are. The very definition of a “vaccine” was oh-so-conveniently changed just a couple of months before Fauci-19 hit us last March...almost as if someone knew what was going to happen and they were lining their ducks up in a row so that everything would be “legal.”
No, the point of attack (IMHO) to use is that all of these various concoctions are only able to be given under the law authorizing the FDA to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). In that very law is a clause that specifically allows any person (with no exceptions for the military, mind you) to refuse ANY EUA-authorized medication, based on the fact that (by necessity) there is simply not enough information available to a would-be recipient of such a medication to be able to evaluate its efficacy and its safety (and that’s because the very process of issuing an EUA short-circuits the normal 8-10 year testing period for any medication).
Basically; it has to be a law passed by house and Senate.
The constitutionality of that then needs to be answered. Imo, it’s left to the states. But, ianal
This was exactly the right decision, for exactly the right reasons.
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.