Posted on 07/12/2024 2:11:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The COVID shot was put on trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and coming from California the result might surprise you. Three of four judges agree it was never a “traditional vaccine” and therefore could not legally be mandated.
The case was against the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) that “required employees to get the COVID-19 vaccination or lose their jobs.” While this case was making its way thru the courts, LAUSD was playing Hokey-Pokey with their policy on “vaccination” which didn’t play well in their litigation strategy, as it allowed the case to be kept alive rather than becoming moot.
Plaintiffs argued that in “Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in concluding that the Policy survived rational basis review. Jacobson held that mandatory vaccinations were rationally related to preventing the spread of smallpox. Here, however, plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient and therefore is akin to a medical treatment, not a “traditional” vaccine. Taking plaintiffs’ allegations as true at this stage of litigation, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine does not effectively “prevent the spread” of COVID-19. Thus, Jacobson does not apply.”
Further, the Ninth Circuit Court observed “Pursuant to more recent Supreme Court authority, compulsory treatment for the health benefit of the person treated -- as opposed to compulsory treatment for the health benefit of others -- implicates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment.”
LAUSD argued, basically, (my words) “we didn’t know any better so” (their words) “[t]he science [on vaccines] has not changed” and they are still “safe and effective.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good thing nobody actually injected that crap into their body
I feel bad for the suckers who took this garbage, and were all morally superior about it.
Guess I’m cynical. First thought is, “what’s it paving the way for?”
“ plaintiffs allege that the vaccine does not effectively prevent spread but only mitigates symptoms for the recipient”
Even that is debatable or questionable.
(Side issue to this case).
I feel bad for the people who were injected at “gunpoint”. The people who got it voluntarily and then acted morally superior deserve whatever they get.
for later
Wow! And it’s the 9th?
And Pfizer hides its data for decades because it wants this and the claims around it to be nothing.
Bankrupt Pfizer!
Okay. What did you do with the actual 9th circus court?
Good.
Bankrupt Pfizer & Moderna instead of Alex Jones.
My job ordered everyone to get the jab and I told them to pound sand. I had legal papers and an attorney at the ready. Fortunately at the last minute, they relented.
This is a recycling of the same bogus story from another like publication from over a month ago - “playing telephone” like the MSM does to recycle nonsense and keep a false narrative going. And of course, like always, if you go to the actual opinion, they were ruling on the rationale for the dismissal, not making any final findings of fact, and the section they claim was a “finding” in this and the other article was where they were summarizing the claims made by each of the parties, not stating either were their own findings - that is what a judge does in outlining the facts of a case. In this case, they found the rationale for dismissing the case did not apply, and remanded it back down for further proceedings and it should go to trial.
And there is no such thing as a 4-judge panel that makes rulings at the Courts of Appeal - it is either a 3 judge panel, or the Court hearing it en banc with all members. This author does not know what they are talking about across the board - the headline and content of the article in its entirety is false, right down to the most basic knowledge of how the court is constituted and court procedure.
Kind of useless at this point, since they’ll make the next one a mandatory bird flu jab—and this hasn’t addressed that.
I feel sorry for the children who had no choice in the matter.
As for the smug Karens who were all morally superior about it, zero f***s given. They wanted me to be fired for refusing to comply.
Well done!
Agree. Maybe they didn’t want the vax either.
As if “legal” has anything to do with it. Tyrants don’t care much about “legal”.
Which is one very good reason why you shouldn’t feel bad for them. Never forget how many of them were ready to put you in camps, take away your freedom, or deny you medical care, because you weren’t a gullible, fearful fool like them.
NEVER forget.
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.