Politics

On January 7th, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments, regarding the mandates for testing or vaccination, that Biden is attempting to impose via OSHA regulation¹. Many Americans listened closely to the arguments. Many listeners were also horrified at how Supreme Court justices made arguments for facts not in the records, that were blatantly and horrifically false. The Supreme Court is often seen as a sacred institution, empowered with determining what is, and is not, constitutional law. On January 7th, many Americas discovered that the judges on the Supreme Court are fallible individuals, subject to the same prejudices as anyone else. Soon, these nine individuals will make the most important decisions in the history of the United States.

During the arguments, Justice Sotomayor stated that “We have over 100,000 children which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators¹“. This statement is so blatantly absurd that even biased fact checking websites had to mark the statement as false².

“[Sotomayor] made up a lot of facts, Justice Breyer did as well. Justice Breyer said 750 million new cases took place … 750 thousand somehow went up to 750 million. So you saw a lot of the effect of the censorship that’s taken place in social media space, and the news media space is translated to judges thinking they know things they don’t know. Because that’s not in the record, as detailed by the 5th Circuit when they initially granted the stay. There was actually very little evidence in the record to support the idea the vaccination would … provide this complete protective umbrella against the spread of COVID … it’s not in the record what these statements that they were making. Sotomayor was just making up claims. To some degree, Justice Breyer frankly did the same. Justice Kagan was treating this as if any emergency justified any departure from the constitution…“ -Robert Barnes³

When it comes to human rights and the Supreme Court, people often like to refer to Brown v. The Board of Education, Miranda v Arizona and others⁴; landmark cases which established essential rights, although some with dubious legal arguments. However, history also tells a terrible story; a trifecta of horrific Supreme Court decisions, that enshrined violations of human rights into law.

In 1944, during the height of World War II, the Supreme Court, in Korematsu v. United States, ruled that the detention of people of Japanese descent, some who were American citizens, could continue at the Manzanar internment camp. In 1927, the Supreme Court held the State could sterilize individuals it found unfit, including those with mental disabilities. Although many have argued Jacobson v. Massachusetts clearly shows the State can compel vaccinations, the 1905 ruling only concluded that Jacobson would be forced to pay the $5 fine, not that he would be compelled to take the vaccine. Jacobson was the first in this trifecta of rulings, showing the fallibility of the Supreme Court when it came to denying unalienable rights in the threat of national emergency.

The Highest Court

Americans are witnessing judges in the highest court in their land, stating blatant falsehoods and citing facts that are not a part of the evidentiary record. Many judges are deferring to the executive branch of government, allowing it to use OSHA to make wide-sweeping changes without going through the legislative process. This is all under the excuse of an emergency that has persisted for nearly two years.

Many states have already enacted laws denying discrimination based on vaccine statues. Iowa has gone as far as to address the current Supreme Court case directly, stating that Iowa will not adopt or enforce federal OSHA mandates⁵. Depending on what comes out of the courts, as well as the federal legislature, this may be the beginning of individual states ignoring federal law; weakening the foundation on which our republic is built.

One may argue, the OSHA directive is not a vaccine mandate. It’s a testing mandate with a vaccine exception. However, if such a rule is allowed, what is to stop the executive branch from using OSHA to implement actual vaccine mandates? A vaccine is not simply a hardhat that must be worn while on the job and removed when one goes home. It’s a medical procedure, using the least tested drug in modern regulatory history; a permanent hardhat affixed to ones skull that must be worn for the remainder of one’s life.

This case will determine the rights of individual citizens when it comes to forced medication and body autonomy. It is quite literally the most important case the Supreme Court has ever taken in the history of the American republic, and it will be determined by nine human beings. May God have mercy on us all.