Conservatives following the developments of the United States Supreme Court have another reason to be concerned with the rulings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett after an August, 12th ruling shocked Republicans across the country. Justice Coney Barrett refused to block an emergency request from eight Indiana University students who petitioned the court to intercede in the school’s plans to require both students and staff to undergo the COVID19 mRNA gene modification colloquially referred to as a ‘vaccine’. Coney Barrett offered no explanation for her decision in the case: Klaasen v. Trustees of Indiana University.
According to The Associated Press, “The students said in court papers that they have “a constitutional right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and of medical treatment choice in the context of a vaccination mandate.” They wanted the high court to issue an order barring the university from enforcing the mandate. Seven of the students qualify for a religious exemption.”
“The court’s newest justice rejected the plea without even asking the university for a response or getting her colleagues to weigh in. Justices often act on their own in such situations when the legal question isn’t particularly close. Barrett handles emergency matters from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which includes Indiana.”
Many Question Coney-Barrett’s Motives Behind Summary Ruling
Most troubling for many observers is that Justice Coney Barrett arrived at the decision to reject the Indiana students’ pleas without asking the University for a response or having any other Justices weigh in. Furthermore, this outright rejection seems to fly in the face of Justice Harlan’s 1905 ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts in which Harlan wrote,
“We are not inclined to hold that the statute establishes the absolute rule that an adult must be vaccinated if it be apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty that he is not at the time a fit subject of vaccination or that vaccination, by reason of his then condition, would seriously impair his health or probably cause his death.”
Justice Harlan clearly found that a person couldn’t be expected to allow themselves to be subject to a vaccination which could “seriously impair his health”, furthermore Harlan’s ruling doesn’t require a doctor’s note either, nor a medical opinion of any kind but simply “reasonable certainty”. According to Cornell Law the standard of “reasonable” provides for “Just, rational, appropriate, ordinary, or usual in the circumstances.” And given the absolute preponderance of adverse effects from the vaccines, there is enough “reasonable certainty” for anyone to reject the so-called “vaccine”.
The Supreme Court Cowers Under Democrat Threats
Therefore, this decision throws the ultimate motives of this supposedly conservative bench into serious question. The way the Democrats continue to scream about the need to pack the court, you’d think conservatives were making some serious judicial gains, but we aren’t! It all started with SCOTUS’ jaw-droppingly baffling decision not to hear Texas v. Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania, the almost unassailable judicial challenge to the validity of the 2020 Election. All of this sounds like a Supreme Court which is deathly afraid of the Democrat-controlled-congress. The constant rhetoric about packing the court seems to be hitting home. Threats from the likes of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have found their mark, and the no longer “Supreme” Court of the United States has bowed in submission.
As for Indiana University, starting in the fall semester, approximately 90,000 students and 40,000 employees will be required to take the COVID19 jab. Those students who refuse to comply will have their registrations revoked, effectively expelling them and employees will be terminated. While there are “religious and medical exemptions” they can look forward to onerous and invasive twice-weekly testing. And EVERYONE vaccinated or not is mandated to wear masks at all times.