What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Judge uses invalid case to deny Oregon employees protection against forced vaccination

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,111
Points
200
SEE: Federal judge denies effort to block Oregon’s vaccine mandate by 7 workers who had COVID-19 (msn.com)

In the court’s Opinion and Order we find the following by Judge Ann Aiken:

"Plaintiffs contend that the vaccine mandates implicate a fundamental right to bodily integrity and privacy and that strict scrutiny should apply.

“As the Seventh Circuit recently noted, “such an argument depends on the existence of a fundamental right ingrained in the American legal tradition.”

“Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in which the Supreme Court sustained a criminal conviction for refusing to be vaccinated."


What Judge Aiken seems to intentionally ignore is, JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS was decided decades before our judicial system adopted the strict scrutiny standard to protect American citizens whenever a government action infringes upon a fundamental right.

How on earth can Judge Aiken truthfully assert the “Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)”, which is prior to our judicial system having adopted the protection of “strict scrutiny”?

The unavoidable truth is, JACOBSON is outdated and irrelevant with respect to today’s circumstances. An abundance of case law today commands that whenever a fundamental right of American citizens is infringed upon by a government act, and the right is claimed to be infringed upon, the act is to be viewed as being “presumptively unconstitutional” and to resolve the issue, the protection of strict scrutiny kicks in.

Heck, even in JACOBSON which Judge Aiken references, the court confirms: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force…”

Perhaps judge Aiken was really asserting the Plaintiffs’ medical privacy, decisions, choices’, and autonomy is not within that bundle of rights which American citizens have long held to be fundamental, and if infringed upon by a government act, do not deserve the protection of strict scrutiny? If so, she ought to have explained what our Supreme Court was saying in Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990)? “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."

And with regard to the meaning of a force with respect to a government mandated vaccination, our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.

Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.

And now, let us keep in mind the protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the act of government:

(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,

(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,

(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.

Our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, and teachers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law.

Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.

Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?


JWK
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
1,912
Points
208
The unavoidable truth is, JACOBSON is outdated and irrelevant with respect to today’s circumstances. An abundance of case law today commands that whenever a fundamental right of American citizens is infringed upon by a government act, and the right is claimed to be infringed upon, the act is to be viewed as being “presumptively unconstitutional” and to resolve the issue, the protection of strict scrutiny kicks in.
It still needs to be framed in the proper perspective. It's all about the rights of a few individuals against preserving the rights of the many.
 

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
6,230
Reaction score
11,276
Points
2,140
Also, Jacobson was dealing with a smallpox outbreak which had a mortality rate of ~30%. The mortality rate of COVID is <1% in totality.

Using this judge's 'logic' then people could be forced to get a flu shot too.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
36,470
Reaction score
20,494
Points
1,915
Location
Tejas
It still needs to be framed in the proper perspective. It's all about the rights of a few individuals against preserving the rights of the many.
I don't know how you do shit in Canada, but here, nobody has the right to force healthcare decisions on others.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
10,668
Reaction score
3,623
Points
345
I don't know how you do shit in Canada, but here, nobody has the right to force healthcare decisions on others.

1) It happens all the time

2) If they don't like it, they can quit their jobs or wait to be fired; and

3) I don't care if people get it or not, but no shot=no job is the way the ball is bouncing these days.
 

Obiwan

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2015
Messages
11,839
Reaction score
9,284
Points
2,295
Location
Indiana
SEE: Federal judge denies effort to block Oregon’s vaccine mandate by 7 workers who had COVID-19 (msn.com)

In the court’s Opinion and Order we find the following by Judge Ann Aiken:

"Plaintiffs contend that the vaccine mandates implicate a fundamental right to bodily integrity and privacy and that strict scrutiny should apply.

“As the Seventh Circuit recently noted, “such an argument depends on the existence of a fundamental right ingrained in the American legal tradition.”

“Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), in which the Supreme Court sustained a criminal conviction for refusing to be vaccinated."


What Judge Aiken seems to intentionally ignore is, JACOBSON v COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS was decided decades before our judicial system adopted the strict scrutiny standard to protect American citizens whenever a government action infringes upon a fundamental right.

How on earth can Judge Aiken truthfully assert the “Plaintiffs’ argument was foreclosed more than a century ago by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)”, which is prior to our judicial system having adopted the protection of “strict scrutiny”?

The unavoidable truth is, JACOBSON is outdated and irrelevant with respect to today’s circumstances. An abundance of case law today commands that whenever a fundamental right of American citizens is infringed upon by a government act, and the right is claimed to be infringed upon, the act is to be viewed as being “presumptively unconstitutional” and to resolve the issue, the protection of strict scrutiny kicks in.

Heck, even in JACOBSON which Judge Aiken references, the court confirms: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force…”

Perhaps judge Aiken was really asserting the Plaintiffs’ medical privacy, decisions, choices’, and autonomy is not within that bundle of rights which American citizens have long held to be fundamental, and if infringed upon by a government act, do not deserve the protection of strict scrutiny? If so, she ought to have explained what our Supreme Court was saying in Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990)? “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."

And with regard to the meaning of a force with respect to a government mandated vaccination, our Supreme Court, in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 summarized that the mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.

Government objectives ". . . cannot be pursued by means that needlessly chill the exercise of basic constitutional rights. Cf. United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 ; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 -489. The question is not whether the chilling effect is “incidental” rather than intentional; the question is whether that effect is unnecessary and therefore excessive . . .UNITED STATES v. JACKSON.

And now, let us keep in mind the protection of strict scrutiny is not meant to prohibit a government act, which in this case is asserted to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the people. Instead, the protection of strict scrutiny is there to insure the act of government:

(A) be narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s purpose,

(B) the purpose must be clearly defined and be based upon scientific and logical reasoning,

(C) and, it must use the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s stated purpose.

Our judicial system needs to stop abdicating its duty and start protecting our police, firefighters, and teachers, and afford them the protection of strict scrutiny which they are indeed entitled to under our system of law.

Is our judicial system so inept that it is incapable to apply “strict scrutiny” in a manner which allows the use of vaccination in furthering the general welfare, while at the same time accommodating the rights of public employees? For example, requiring the use of N95 masks in appropriate situations; having a daily temperature check of employees when showing up for work; periodic testing for the COVID virus; social distancing; providing an exemption for those with natural immunity, and/or those who are resistant to the vaccination, but hold them to the above precautionary methods; and other such common sense measures which could be narrowly tailored by the Court to promote the general welfare of all, while likewise preserving the rights of government employees.

Is not time for our Supreme Court to step in and end the divide among our citizens, and work to accommodate all in such troubled and contentious times?


JWK
Hey, I'll play....

Before 1860, the SCOTUS declared slavery to be legal....

Where's IQ2???
 

Darkwind

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
29,718
Reaction score
11,864
Points
910
It still needs to be framed in the proper perspective. It's all about the rights of a few individuals against preserving the rights of the many.
In fact, that argument cannot be sustained.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
77,703
Reaction score
51,228
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Also, Jacobson was dealing with a smallpox outbreak which had a mortality rate of ~30%. The mortality rate of COVID is <1% in totality.

Using this judge's 'logic' then people could be forced to get a flu shot too.
By that standard, you could be forced to by Ny-Quil if you caught a cold.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
36,470
Reaction score
20,494
Points
1,915
Location
Tejas
Your asinine use of Russian whataboutism is noted:

View attachment 554727
JWK
That's not whataboutism. You referred to Stare Decisis as proof that such a ruling is proper and valid. Owing another human was declared legal in 1860, so based on Stare Decisis it should still be legal, right?
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,111
Points
200
That's not whataboutism. You referred to Stare Decisis as proof that such a ruling is proper and valid. Owing another human was declared legal in 1860, so based on Stare Decisis it should still be legal, right?
And posting that nonsense with reference to the subject being discussed in the thread is indeed Russian whataboutism.
 

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
13,786
Reaction score
7,884
Points
1,065
1) It happens all the time

2) If they don't like it, they can quit their jobs or wait to be fired; and

3) I don't care if people get it or not, but no shot=no job is the way the ball is bouncing these days.

It doesn't happen all the time. It's illegal to force someone to get injected with a medication against their will and the SCOTUS has ruled as such.

People refuse medical treatment all the time, they aren't FORCED to accept it against their will all the time.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
10,668
Reaction score
3,623
Points
345
It doesn't happen all the time. It's illegal to force someone to get injected with a medication against their will and the SCOTUS has ruled as such.

People refuse medical treatment all the time, they aren't FORCED to accept it against their will all the time.

People are not free to have their cake and eat it to and it does happen all the time that they are forced to either get vaccines or be denied their cake.
 

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
13,786
Reaction score
7,884
Points
1,065
People are not free to have their cake and eat it to and it does happen all the time that they are forced to either get vaccines or be denied their cake.

That is not legal. Who can legally do it? STATES NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Fucking Joe Biden can't force anyone to do anything. I can promise you this will be challenged in court. SCOTUS has already ruled it illegal.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
10,668
Reaction score
3,623
Points
345
That is not legal. Who can legally do it? STATES NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Fucking Joe Biden can't force anyone to do anything. I can promise you this will be challenged in court. SCOTUS has already ruled it illegal.

"I don't want one" does not qualify you for either a medical or an administrative waiver for the vaccines the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requires via the Department of Defense. Take them or flip burgers.
 
OP
J

johnwk

Gold Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
2,932
Reaction score
1,111
Points
200
People are not free to have their cake and eat it to and it does happen all the time that they are forced to either get vaccines or be denied their cake.
I have no idea how that applies to the subject of the thread.

JWK
 

rightnow909

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2021
Messages
836
Reaction score
520
Points
873
1) It happens all the time

2) If they don't like it, they can quit their jobs or wait to be fired; and

3) I don't care if people get it or not, but no shot=no job is the way the ball is bouncing these days.
oh, so you believe in being a bully/tyrant?

you believe in

Don't want the vax?
You can starve then, and all your family


Lefties are so loving and compassionate
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top