This is from the Supreme Court over 100 years ago:

[40RatRod]

“The Constitution does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. A community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic, and its members may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.” Jacobson vs Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 7-2 majority

[Wounded Bear]

1. The USSC is fast becoming a precedent-free zone...

[relayerbob]

5. Most of the GQP government is becoming precedent- and law- free

[CaptainTruth]

9. And reality-free.

[relayerbob]

13. Good point

[FBaggins]

25. Where have they overturned Jacobsen?

Heck… they’ve dismissed a number of cases in recent weeks because the case is such firm precedent.

[Lucky Luciano]

28. It appears some like to distinguish a state doing it versus the Feds.

My poorly understood understanding is that Jacobsen is not relevant if the Feds do it. More bullshit state’s rights crap.

[FBaggins]

31. Not "some" - that's the standard interpretation

My poorly understood understanding is that Jacobsen is not relevant if the Feds do it. More bullshit state’s rights crap.

Not BS at all. It's actually pretty straightforward. Jacobsen makes clear that states have this authority because the power is part of the "police powers" that the states retain (under the 10th Amendment)... but that the federal government was never granted in the Constitution.

[Lucky Luciano]

35. I call BS because rogue states/governors are empowered

…to wreak maximum havoc in ways that are worse for the country.

[FBaggins]

36. You call BS?

That's so cute that you think that the Constitution necessarily says whatever you (a quarter of a millennia later) think makes the most sense from a policy perspective.

Nevertheless - what I gave you is far from "BS" - regardless of what might make better policy today.

Jacobsen does indeed recognize the state's power to mandate vaccines and that it comes from the state's police powers. Other SCOTUS cases that are almost as old (e.g., Carter v Carter Coal Co) show that the federal government lacks those police powers. In fact, it's the classic example for what the 10th Amendment is talking about.

Note as evidence that there have been thousands of vaccine mandates since Jacobsen, and all of them (with the exception of the federal government's role as an employer - as with the military) have been issued by the states. We can take as further evidence that all of the challenges to state-level Covid vaccination requirements have been rapidly denied (even by right-wing courts) - while the federal mandate was immediately blocked.

On edit - a little more

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-10/03-federal-police-power.html

a unanimous Court, in an opinion by Justice Brandeis, upheld “War Prohibition,” saying, “That the United States lacks the police power, and that this was reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, is true.

[Lucky Luciano]

37. Not saying you're wrong. Saying it's BS.

[FBaggins]

38. Ah

My apologies for the knee-jerk reaction

[Hortensis]

2. Yup. And colonies, communities, states, marine authorities

all had enacted and enforced protections on this continent for over a couple hundred years before.

Incredibly important. Before even the invention of antibiotics, epidemic disease outbreaks that devastated families, neighorhoods, towns were common, and keeping them from spreading a matter of life and death.

People lived a lot closer to death in those days, especially their children, and lived with the reality that it really could happen to them. At any time.

[Frasier Balzov]

3. That case certainly is a double-edged sword.

Cited to justify sterilization of mentally challenged individuals.

More recently cited to halt abortions in Texas as a C19 measure.

[SunImp]

10. Evil people will always find ways to twist everything good into something negative

[Busterscruggs]

4. The sad thing is

There are some out there that will still refuse, no matter how much we try to negotiate them into the shot. I wonder if this is all in futility. If there's even one person not vaxxed, it's all for nothing

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Wrong. You have stated a Right Wing talking point

If there's even one person not vaxxed, it's all for nothing

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Most obviously, if there is only one person not vaxxed, they wouldn't be infecting anybody. But it seems logic did not occur to you.

The goal, as things have developed and turned out, is to have about 80% of all citizens 12 or over vaccinated. 100% is not needed to achieve herd immunity, especially as some in the 20% will have acquired some immunity by surviving a Covid infection.

The REAL GOAL is to get 75-80% global vaccination to deny breeding grounds for mutated variants.

[Busterscruggs]

14. I am the furthest

From rightwing as possible. Please don't insult me like that. I really felt like I found a warm group of like minded people. This really hurts. My frustration with the antivaxxers was what I was trying to portray.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Okay. I understand your frustration. It is shared by everyone here.

DU is a warm place for like minded people, but there is not much tolerance for nonsense. We see it a lot on red websites. Thus I was startled by your post. They say there that the vaccines don't work because they are not 100% effective and there will never be 100% vaccination.

[PatSeg]

12. Over the years,

there was never a 100% vaccination rate for any disease, but we've conquered many infectious diseases. It is not realistic to expect every person, everywhere will be vaccinated, but if enough are, we can control the spread.

Welcome to DU!

[Busterscruggs]

15. Thank you

For the warm hello patseg

[PatSeg]

26. You are very welcome

[Xipe Totec]

6. From Stare Decisis to Staring Dismissive. nt

[True Blue American]

8. Since the Supreme Court

Is turning everything to the States I suggest we get get rid of the Supreme Court. We do not need them any more!

[BlueIdaho]

20. Exactly Right

The Supreme Court is painting itself into a corner and cementing its irrelevance as a neutral arbiter of the law. Once the Court is seen as a political body, it is useless in our Democracy.

I think there are only two possible remedies to this constitutional disaster. One, disband the Supreme Court and let governance become a strictly political tussle. Or Two, increase the bull pen of justices and make sure justices are rotated onto an individual case with equal numbers of conservative and progressive members to force them to come to a mutually agreeable apolitical decision.

[True Blue American]

23. Great solution.

One thing is certain, they have to change. The last 3 testified abortion was a settle case. Yet here they are changing it. They all lied in their testimony to Congress and need to be punished, just like those who defy Congress.

[jaxexpat]

29. Both are band-aid solutions. How about re-examining the nomination/confirmation process.

That seems to be where the balance toward fairness has become skewed. We have a USSC wherein the conservative executives have exercised nomination prerogatives far more often than the progressives despite their time in executive office being less. Unfair, bad for democracy and justice. Did you notice how Trump got 3 justices through in 4 years while Obama got only 2 justices through in 8 years?

The Senate should elect to restrain itself in a requirement to immediately recognize the nomination of and vote up or down on any USSC nominations from the executive office. That the Senate must have a yes/no vote within, say, 10 days after receiving a president's nomination. Theoretically, a same day nomination/confirmation process. And all this regardless of the president's remaining term in office. Even if their term ends at noon of a day when the justice retires at 11:59 am, if they get their nomination recognized by the senate before 12:00 noon, that president's nominee will still receive a senate vote within 10 days. Even into the next president's term.

Oh, and BTW use the same methodology for all federal judges as well.

It's not complicated. It's fair, doable and reasonable. Accomplishes the greatest justice with the least disruption. That it minimizes politicization of the process is probably why no one's suggested or tried it.

I do see how the senate could simply vote down any nominee until the president's term is over but that's already the senate's option. I even kind of like the voting part about it. What becomes outlawed is the senate's refusal to vote at all.

[dchill]

11. Evidently, abortions are the "epidemic" now.

[Busterscruggs]

16. The right doesn't care

About the babies afterwards, we just need more of them! (Crazy psychos)

[NYC Liberal]

17. George Carlin...

“Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”

[Busterscruggs]

18. Truth

In comedy. Mr. Carlin was a wonderful outlet for the voice of the left. RIP

[True Blue American]

24. A note here.

George was married to the aunt of my Son’s best friend. He visited Englewood often.

That does not make me important. just an observation. We always heard the funny stories.

[Poiuyt]

21. What was this in reference to?

Spanish flu? Smallpox?

[former9thward]

22. Smallpox in 1902

[Poiuyt]

27. Thanks!

[wnylib]

30. Also note that the ruling speaks of communities,

and their governments, not the nation as a whole and the federal government. That is what the RW is using to support local anti vax, anti mask laws and their claim that the federal government cannot intervene with local laws or make national mandates.

[former9thward]

32. Yes, that definitely was how health matters were handled then.

During the flu pandemic in 1918-1920 various communities had very different responses. Some aggressive, some nothing at all. The federal government had no response at all. President Wilson never mentioned the pandemic once in any public remarks.

[wnylib]

34. From what I've read about Wilson and

the flu pandemic, he intentionally ignored it and refused to take any precautions about the spread of it among troops.

[msfiddlestix]

33. this is a keeper, maybe someone should send this to certain SCOTUS justices

as well as the media and all of the anti mandate idiots