5 Comments

How about we stop pretending like Jacobson allowed for exclusion. It allowed a civil fine.

But we waste money on lawyers who argue on technicalities like "it doesn't stop transmission".

Sometimes I feel like a lot of these legal groups are just there to make money. Or maybe they're that dumb?

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4934&context=buffalolawreview

Expand full comment

Jacobson has been interpreted in the courts forniver 100 years in a way that has EXPANDED government ability to over-reach into our civil liberties. Hopefully in 2025 we will see the first blows AGAINST that over reach feom Leslie Manookian and Health Freedom Defense Fund (more on that coming in March...

Expand full comment

Yes. Did any lawyer call that out in the past?

(A fine is no big deal compared to what they did to y'all and the insane school mandates.)

https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4934&context=buffalolawreview

The religious belief of vaccines and it's authoritative push are destined to fail.

Expand full comment

From my understanding the courts have never taken seriously the difference between a small fine and being barred from school or work - they have basically extrapolated that back 100 years ago a $5 fine was for declining vaccination was fair, and today being banned from school or work for declining vaccination is also fair.

Expand full comment

Kind of psychopathic.

It explains why throughout the country, we have violated human rights.

https://www.michaeltsarion.com/constitution-con.html

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." - Judge Charles Evans Hughes

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” ― Benjamin Franklin

Expand full comment