"The resolution of this debate is in the future , not the past."
I'm sorry, but this is not correct. The law is not a nose of wax that can be twisted in any way one wishes.
Let's start with the basics, namely stare decisis: "To stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications. 1 Kent, Comm. 477."
Find the legal definition of STARE DECISIS from Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition. Lat. To stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications. 1 Kent, Comm. 477....
thelawdictionary.org
You're asserting that an issue that is settled law is not actually settled law. Your theory seems to be based on home-brew notions about "oversized idiot fringe and their enablers." You do realize that those are just thoughts that you have in your mind? Your thoughts are not the law.
The law is
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). The law is right there, see I just spelled it out. If you want to know what the law is, read the law. Read this case. This is what one does in law school. If one wants to avoid getting sued for malpractice, one also reads the law before filing motions and arguing in court.
I realize you don't want to do the research, but you don't have to. The law on this point is
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). It is decided law.
Here's an article about what judge Easterbrook (a Reagan appointee) had to say about vaccine mandates in a unanimous 7th circuit opinion issued yesterday:
>>>“Given
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), which holds that a state may require all members of the public to be vaccinated against smallpox, there can’t be a constitutional problem with vaccination against SARS-CoV-2,” Easterbrook wrote Monday. “Plaintiffs assert that the rational-basis standard used in
Jacobson does not offer enough protection for their interests and that courts should not be as deferential to the decisions of public bodies as
Jacobson was,
but a court of appeals must apply the law established by the Supreme Court.”
Jacobson defeats the plaintiffs’ argument that IU’s vaccine mandate violated their fundamental rights, thus implicating substantive due process, Easterbrook wrote. And, he added, “this case is easier than
Jacobson for the University, for two reasons.”
First,
Jacobson upheld a vaccine mandate that did not allow for exceptions for adults, while IU’s mandate does have exceptions. And second, unlike in
Jacobson, “Indiana does not require every adult member of the public to be vaccinated … ,” the 7th Circuit held.
“Each university may decide what is necessary to keep other students safe in a congregate setting. Health exams and vaccinations against other diseases (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, varicella, meningitis, influenza, and more) are common requirements of higher education. Vaccination protects not only the vaccinated person but also those who come in contact with them, and at a university close contact is inevitable,” Easterbrook wrote for the panel.
“We assume with plaintiffs that they have a right in bodily integrity. They also have a right to hold property,” he continued. “Yet they or their parents must surrender property to attend Indiana University. Undergraduates must part with at least $11,000 a year (in-state tuition), even though Indiana could not summarily confiscate that sum from all residents of college age.
“… If conditions of higher education may include surrendering property and following instructions about what to read and write, it is hard to see a greater problem with medical conditions that will help all students remain safe when learning,” the panel concluded. “A university will have trouble operating when each student fears that everyone else may be spread disease. Few people want to return to remote education — and we do not think that the Constitution forces the distance-learning approach on a university that believes vaccination (or masks or frequent testing of the unvaccinated) will make in-person operations safe enough.”<<<
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request to enjoin Indiana University’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, letting the Bloomington-based school system proceed with its requirement that students, faculty and staff be inoculated against the virus before returning to campus this month.
www.theindianalawyer.com
This is settled law, and challengers will continue to run into a legal brick wall. They will squeal and protest, of course because they don't like this brick wall, but their squeals will change nothing.
