Upholding a Vaccine Mandate, the 9th Circuit Embraces an Alarmingly Broad Definition of 'Public Health'

Reason ^ | 8.4.2025 | Jacob Sullum

[Soul of the South]

I cannot think of a single founding father, involved with the ratification of the Constitution, who would have agreed the concept a government can compel a citizen to take vaccines, pharmaceuticals or medical treatment required by the government. The founders would find such compulsion completely at odds with their concept of individual liberty.

Should the Supreme Court uphold this ruling, freedom of the individual from any kind of government tyranny is dead.

[vivenne]

Smallpox and Covid are two very different types of viruses and vaccines.

[Dalberg-Acton]

They government was granted no “emergency powers” by the U. S. Constitution.

Its powers are narrow and defined. Emergency powers are broad and undefined. Any powers not specifically granted are reserved to the States and the people.

[kiryandil]

Last week in Health Freedom Fund v. Carvalho, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed that distinction as constitutionally irrelevant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 14, 2023 Seattle, Washington
Filed June 7, 2024
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins [Clinton], Ryan D. Nelson [Trump], and Daniel P. Collins [Trump], Circuit Judges.

[kiryandil]

Dale S. Fischer, Bushie junior stooge.

Two to one at the appellate level.

[so_real]

I can hardly believe that vaccine mandates are still even a consideration after the Covid19 vax hurt and killed so many people.

"Mal: Well, I ain't them. And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back"

[SaveFerris]

(I cannot think of a single founding father, involved with the ratification of the Constitution, who would have agreed the concept a government can compel a citizen to take vaccines, pharmaceuticals or medical treatment required by the government.)

Just the 666 World Economic Forum and the coming New World Order. /shiny side out

safe AND effective (they said)

COVID-19(84) - GLOBAL TYRANNY 🌍🌎🌏 GLOBAL EVIL

A WORLDWIDE 🌎🌏🌍 DECEPTION, too

DRY RUN? Lotsa parallels

[MileHi]

the government may require COVID-19 shots based purely on the benefits to recipients.

There is little to no evidence of "benefit" to the recipients. There is growing evidence of harm.

[Captain Walker]

Jacobson v. Massachusetts has been misquoted throughout the Covid hysteria.

The decision was never that one could be forced to take the shot, only that anyone who refused could be fined.

It's not a "difference without distinction"; there was never a ruling that determined that someone could be physically forced into complying.

[Tymesup]

Can an individual sue the vaccine manufacturer if they suffer adverse events? No, they have immunity.

Who granted the manufacturers immunity? The government. Can the individual sue the government? No, they have immunity, too.

Doesn’t seem right to me.

[kiryandil]

Kenneth Lee [Trump] and Daniel Collins [Trump] dissent from the en banc opinion. Most of the eleven judges are most likely Clinton, Obama and Biden stooges, since Biden's autopen reclaimed the majority in the Ninth Circuit.

[9YearLurker]

If the Supremes don’t fix this, we’re cooked.

[Buck-Toothed Knuckle Dragger]

Well they can eat gourmet shit and die before I’ll ever let them inject me.

[SaveFerris]

(Dale S. Fischer, Bushie junior stooge)

Figures with W

---

George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and
Son of Satan Barack Hussein Obama

COVID-19(84) PROPAGANDA video

Bush Obama Clinton vaccine commercial

From Arlington National CEMETERY 🪦🪦🪦

https://g.co/kgs/n63z1Pm

READ THE COMMENTS AT THE VIDEO

[Secret Agent Man]

Anyone mandates I take a shot I don’t want, they are going to have to take a shot of mine first.

[Secret Agent Man]

Yep. Apparently the court ignored these growing irrefutable facts.

[Pontiac]

"Jacobson holds that the constitutionality of a vaccine mandate, like the Policy here, turns on what reasonable legislative and executive decisionmakers could have rationally concluded about whether a vaccine protects the public's health and safety, not whether a vaccine actually provides immunity to or prevents transmission of a disease," Judge Mark Bennett wrote in the majority opinion. "Whether a vaccine protects the public's health and safety is committed to policymakers, not a court or a jury. Further, alleged scientific uncertainty over a vaccine's efficacy is irrelevant under Jacobson."

How could policy makers make a rational conclude that the vaccine did anything when the vaccine producers had No Human studies and the animal studies that they had at the time killed the animals?

Rationally they should have run away from the vaccine streaking in terror.

[VanShuyten]

I don’t live in the 9th District, but I’m getting the feeling that I should start stockpiling pipe tobacco and bourbon.

[DugwayDuke]

Soul of the South wrote: “I cannot think of a single founding father, involved with the ratification of the Constitution, who would have agreed the concept a government can compel a citizen to take vaccines, pharmaceuticals or medical treatment required by the government. The founders would find such compulsion completely at odds with their concept of individual liberty.”

That’s pure speculation on your part. Especially if you consider the fact that the Constitution was ratified many, many years before vaccines were developed.