131 Comments

Hey Jeff - I wish I found your writings a couple months ago! You are so extremely helpful to me and many of my coworkers who were in the crosshairs of the Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate. Then, coworkers at some of our sites were under the OSHA Vaccine Mandate. I work for a major Dow 20 company that treated us horribly, unethically, and probably violated many laws in doing so. On the legal analysis that you provide - this is actually one of the most useful parts of your writing - so please keep it up and go into a little more detail if possible. We love it and need it!

Aaron Gonzalez

Expand full comment

I agree that any honest assessment of the facts would lead SCOTUS to send the ETS back to the pit from whence it came.

Unfortunately that carries limited comfort for me, because most of our pandemic response has not been characterized by an honest assessment of the facts. If facts and logic were the determinants of this issue so far, we would not even be in this position.

I'm just praying that the appeal to SCOTUS bucks the general trend.

Expand full comment

'Astrazeneca’s Evusheld, is an antibody cocktail that works BEFORE you are infected." That doesn't sound like a treatment. It sounds like another "vaccine" coming to you from the fine folks at pharma. AND these have been authorized under EUA, which means that long term safety studies are lacking. Please be careful before running out and volunteering to inject yourself with these miracle ("non-vaccine") magic bullets.

Expand full comment

Its appalling to me that there is never any discussion about the morality or legality of OSHA itself. Its just accepted as a given that the fed gov of the US or any state or local gov for that matter has any authority to dictate to a private group how they conduct business ( they dont). THe whole thing rests on a fundamentally flawed premise. And the premise itself is disingenuous because the original intent of the formation of OHSA might have ostensibly been to ensure "workplace safety" but the real impetus and subtext behind and beneath ALL of these initiatives, programs, and regulations are to get votes for a certain pol so that pol can retain and augment power. Since there are far more workers than employers and one needs 51% to win an election. Nixon and other like him could grandstand and propagandize about "workplace safety" and further their careers by "promising" to protect workers from those big bad greedy unfair bosses. WHen we read this opinion and we are struck by the ignorance and ideology masquerading as serious ethical philosophizing we have to remember that foundation of OSHA itself was borne out of class warfare, politics, grandstanding, economic ignorance and power lust. Even the name is a smokescreen . It should be called the marxist class warfare agency.

Expand full comment
Dec 18, 2021·edited Dec 18, 2021

Great post.

My greatest concern around the Supreme Court reticence is that truth (if at all) may come too late. If millions of people are forced to get the jab, what benefit to the parties and those in whose interest these cases serve (other than future policies) is a later ruling? The time is NOW!

What do you think about Jacobson being (at least tacitly) overruled in Casey? It was a string cite but clearly the Court recognized an evolved understanding of privacy and bodily autonomy since Jacobson was decided (whatever I may think of Casey otherwise). How can people continue to rely on Jacobson? How will the Conservative Supreme Court Justices thread the needle of overturning Roe while also overruling Jacobson? (or will they merely distinguish it on State vs Federal grounds?).

One thing I disagree with Jeff on -- this is not merely a difference in federalism from Jacobson. This is a fundamental liberty question - the facts of Jacobson are distinguishable NOT ONLY due to federalism but ALSO (and more importantly perhaps) on the fundamental rights of human beings to avoid coercion absent extreme and certain public health interests noted in Jacobson (even if that coercion is direct from the feds or indirect through corporate cronies).

Hopefully this is an opportunity to recognize that large public multinational companies are often acting in a governmental enforcement role even absent administrative edict. Having CEOs make weekly calls with the White House to foster a public policy action -- or worse, a global climate agenda -- or whatever, with large hedge funds acting as the sword to compel that interest is worthy of civil rights protection. As a libertarian/conservative/right-leaning individual, I share the reflex to avoid limiting or forcing private action, but our public companies are no more "private" than OSHA.

From Casey...

"No evolution of legal principle has left Roe's doctrinal footings weaker than they were in 1973. No development of constitutional law since the case was decided has implicitly or explicitly left Roe behind as a mere survivor of obsolete constitutional thinking.

It will be recognized, of course, that Roe stands at an intersection of two lines of decisions, but in whichever doctrinal category one reads the case, the result for present purposes will be the same. The Roe Court itself placed its holding in the succession of cases most prominently exemplified by Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), see Roe, 410 U. S., at 152-153. When it is so seen, Roe is clearly in no jeopardy, since subsequent constitutional developments have neither disturbed, nor do they threaten to diminish, the scope of recognized protection accorded to the liberty relating to intimate relationships, the family, and decisions about whether or not to beget or bear a child. See, e.g., Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).

Roe, however, may be seen not only as an exemplar of Griswold liberty but as a rule (whether or not mistaken) of personal autonomy and bodily integrity, with doctrinal affinity to cases recognizing limits on governmental power to mandate medical treatment or to bar its rejection. If so, our cases since Roe accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261,278 (1990); Cf., e.g., Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. ____, ____ (1992) (slip. op., at 7); Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990); see also, e.g., Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 24-30 (1905)."

Also, I try ought it was notable that the 6th Circuit decision was completely silent on natural immunity.

Expand full comment

While Florida’s DeSantis is light years ahead of near commie, Michigan, I do not trust anything that comes out of big pharma. I wish he would make ivermectin and HCQ as readily available as this new prophylactic. My guess is he does not want to piss off the puppet masters who now rule the globe, (or so they believe), and their long reach is powerful. I am also sure this is some deal offered to FLorida so it can be made available to everyone who wants it. Alas, if ivermectin could be as widely distributed, it would be so much cheaper, HCQ was over the counter in many African nations a year ago. Now it’s gone poof, unless you ‘re someone with Lupus, who have used it all through this crisis. In Michigan,pharmacies still can not write scrips for either.

Expand full comment

Thanks for calming me down a bit about the 6th Circuit. But regardless of what eventually happens in court, most of the damage has already been done. When I read the stories of vax victims, people who have already been fired, etc. no court decision is going to restore them to their previous lives. But at least I am bit more optimistic that the Supreme Court will weigh in and hopefully stop this madness and wake people up to the medical totalitarianism that seems to be growing by the day.

Expand full comment

Thanks Jeff!

I just keeping shaking my head over these "mandates" of the short-acting "vaccine" -- will they be in place forever? Will I /never/ be able to travel to Canada? Will unvaccinated people /never/ be able to enter the United States? Never? ("Did you get the shot 15 years that did nothing?") Will people 25 years from now have to go find the 2019 version of the "COVID" vaccine-- will it still be produced? Or will it be updated to the 2035 version? Will that be acceptable? Will college students (and visitor to the Vermont State house) still be taking PCR tests every day? Will they still test positive? When will this panic ever end?

It's all so mind-boggle-ingly stupid.

Expand full comment

My problem for folks is that so much of the scrimmage line has been moved the last 2 years. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the Mandate, which it is not at all clear they will do, but if they do, it will come with language of why THIS mandate is struck down.. and folks will take another run at it. There is too much money, impetus the the power structure for the next decade is on the line, maybe longer. Exhibit A: Phizer just announced that it is going straight for a 3 jab protocol for young kids, who are for all intents and purposes at no risk for this. Every front is doubling down.

Between abortion, gun control laws, and this mandate, the STORY generated should the constitution ACTUALLY get upheld (instead of SCOTUS law making in the past) will super motivate the left. The ruling should be what they should be, but the narrative and story of what that means , why, etc.. has got to be worked on hard by conservatives and constitutionalists. This is clearly a weak point, arguing only the facts, law, etc, with no motivating reason why these are good and just and needed for a real society that looks anything like America… and even that is not longer a good enough story, actually.

Expand full comment

Thank you for these posts Jeff! I am in Florida and very thankful for it these days... I am also in healthcare and this was another heart stopping moment when I read about the 5th Circuit Court last night stopping the injunction block. It is the most frustrating thing to be in a ping pong ball situation over livelihood. Who can stop these communistic overreaching thugs in office?

Expand full comment
founding

When the virus does not exist, neither does COVID... During the the peak of the media fear campaign, the susceptible masses were programmed to react to every sneeze as a sign of Covid - too often followed by ER trips and testing, testing, testing... When Nancy Pelosi purchased a $22 Million dollar mansion on the coast of Florida she demonstrated to her supporters that she was more fearful of Newsom's California mandates than Global Warming and rising sea levels in Florida.

Expand full comment

The 6th Circuit: “The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy.”

Even if it were the purview of courts to rule on points of emotion rather than law, this argument fails to support their decision as it is not the virus that is causing the problems they list but rather the insane reaction to the virus by government entities. The issue they are ruling on is one of those insane reactions.

Regarding the Africa Omicron issue, Alex Berenson discusses one of the left's lame excuses, that cases are low because Africa has a younger population, here:

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/correcting-misinformation

Note that, among other problems with such an argument, it flies on the face of the left's insistence on injecting young and old alike.

Expand full comment

As for these prophylactic treatments, according to the September 2021 definition from the CDC (I couldn't find a newer definition) "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases." So, yeah, these treatments, along with what many of us already do to support and build the immune system, seem to qualify as "vaccines".

The fact that they are under EU is very concerning - EUs have seen some questionable efficacy and safety results.

Expand full comment

Repost........ The manipulation of all Americans is an issue, but dims in comparison to the facts being revealed now that show that our own Government has been planning for years to develop a deadly corona virus that was release on us and the World. Then they ran fake negative evaluation testing and passed laws to keep proven safe and effective early treatment drugs, like HCQ and Ivermectin, off the market so the FDA could pass emergency use for their spike protein injections. Then they blocked the ability of doctors, hospitals and old people homes from access to these cheap worldwide proven early treatment drugs, and in doing so probably causing the death of 85% of 800,000 that they say died from Covid19. All so they could play God and steal $billions with mRNA injections and killing nearly 700,000 Americans. The proof is America has the highest death rate in the World, and it caused more deaths worldwide than all 20 century wars combined. That is what the headlines should be and what everyone should be pissed off about. These people need to be removed from power and the FDA, NIH, CDC need total restructuring...now. It makes little difference if it is greed, power, ineptitude , or insanity driving this genocide. Our own health care system has failed us.....to put it mildly.

Expand full comment

Thank you Jeff for all of your work on this.

Using your guidance, I now have an approved RA from the FC mandate.

I am upset that I needed to do it in the first place, but after praying about it, I decided to do it. I will not take the injection. This is OUR fight for God, Country, and Liberty.

Expand full comment

Just to completely take a hard right turn....I saw a shirt yesterday with George Washington saying: "Me and my homies would be stacking the bodies by now." I like.

Expand full comment