Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The policy initially provided teachers the ability to opt-out of the vaccine requirement by agreeing instead to undergo weekly COVID-19 screenings. That option was later withdrawn for teachers, however, even as firefighters and police officers continue to be able to opt-out of receiving jabs."
The teachers go on to argue there is no rational and non-discriminatory basis for treating teachers differently than other city workers.
The fact is, under the strict scrutiny test, which is available when a fundamental right hangs in the balance, the New York City mandate fails and the teachers should prevail in a full court hearing.
Keep in mind, a one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the government's compelling purpose, which must be clearly stated, and does not use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor should grant a temporary injunction and have a full hearing scheduled.
JWK
Doubtful. They would need to be prepared to overturn Jacobson.
Doubtful. They would need to be prepared to overturn Jacobson.
Quote that part of Jacobson which you are referring to.
I don't think you actually read the case. I have, and Jacobson would not have to be overturned to enforce the strict scrutiny test with regard to the specific mandate being questioned.
Quote that part of Jacobson which you are referring to.
I don't think you actually read the case. I have, and Jacobson would not have to be overturned to enforce the strict scrutiny test with regard to the specific mandate being questioned.
JWK
You can’t be serious. Jacobson is actually prophetic in this instance. A guy with no real health conditions didn’t want to take the smallpox vaccine. He argued everything the antivaxers of today argue (which I think is extraordinary): the vaccine doesn’t work; the vaccine is harmful; it invades my liberty; my doctor says I don’t need it; doctors x,y,z agree that the vaccine doesn’t work… the Court rejected every one of those arguments. The whole case is, in fact, spot-on when discussing the local vaccine mandates of today. If anything, Jacobson held that the local government can go as far as forcibly vaccinating and quarantining people.
You can’t be serious. Jacobson is actually prophetic in this instance. A guy with no real health conditions didn’t want to take the smallpox vaccine. He argued everything the antivaxers of today argue (which I think is extraordinary): the vaccine doesn’t work; the vaccine is harmful; it invades my liberty; my doctor says I don’t need it; doctors x,y,z agree that the vaccine doesn’t work… the Court rejected every one of those arguments. The whole case is, in fact, spot-on when discussing the local vaccine mandates of today. If anything, Jacobson held that the local government can go as far as forcibly vaccinating and quarantining people.
Yes. I am very serious. All I asked for was for you to quote that part of Jacobson which you are referring to.
You see, I have actually read the case and Jacobson would not have to be overturned to enforce the strict scrutiny test with regard to a number of the specific mandates which are today being questioned.
"If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5."
Now, applying "strict scrutiny" to some of today's vaccine mandates, they would fail because a one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine mandate which is not "narrowly tailored" to achieve the government's purpose ___ a purpose which must be clearly stated and be factually based ___ and does not use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose, fails under strict scrutiny.
Sotomayor rejects New York Teachers' request to be heard on vaccine mandate
.
I just saw that Sotomayor rejected the teachers request, and did not say why, nor did she refer the matter to the full court for a vote. It appears our Supreme Court is ignoring the people's right to petition their government for a redress of grievances . . . the United States is looking more and more like Cuba, Venezuela, China, and other such governments where the people only have those rights the government assigns as a privilege.
In regard to COVID vaccine mandates and strict scrutiny
It has long been settled law that a legislative act which “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” See: Harris v. McRae United States Supreme Court (1980) Also see City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)
Also see, “The mere chilling of a Constitutional right by a penalty on its exercise is patently unconstitutional.” Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
And in Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 229 (1990) we find “The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty."
Henning Jacobson refused the vaccination saying he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations. In response the court stated:
“If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of the penalty of $5.”
And this is why observing and applying the protections of strict scrutiny is essential in the ongoing controversy over government mandates with respect to the COVID outbreak.
We are a government controlled and restrained by the rule of law, and not by mandates imposed by folks in government. And when fundamental rights hang in the balance, as they are when folks in government impose mandates upon the people, as is currently being done, it is the Supreme Courts’ job to step in and judge those mandates within the confines of the protections offered under “strict scrutiny”.
Folks in government are not authorized to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, but rather, are restricted by the rule of law.
As Justice Hugo Black stated: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
I just saw that Sotomayor rejected the teachers request, and did not say why, nor did she refer the matter to the full court for a vote. It appears our Supreme Court is ignoring the people's right to petition their government for a redress of grievances . . . the United States is looking more and more like Cuba, Venezuela, China, and other such governments where the people only have those rights the government assigns as a privilege.
JWK
And there's the problem, yes?
So, what's the solution?
There is no rule of law. Judges, especially Federal, have gotten used to doing whatever they want. All of them need to recuse themselves over a certain age because their fear is making the decisions.
I am so upset at my workplace. We were sent 2 different version of a policy one with testing mandates followed by one without, which clearly made everyone think testing wasn't happening.
Yesterday, at 2 PM all the unvaccinated received an e-mail stating, that 1. We were required to test, 2. home tests were NOT allowed and 3. they would not pay for the PCR testing. Not at all the guidance we have received nationally.
And, the kicker, the first test result is required Monday. IMHO to force an employment action as it is very hard to get a test on such short notice.
Also everyone is still working from home.
It was such an F*** you to the unvaccinated. I just by luck will be "fully vaccinated" on Sunday so this will not apply to me.
To give zero time for people to weigh their options says they just want to be dicks about it. Not to mention the way they phrased the second policy making it so people didn't realize testing would be required.
I have worked in this toxic place for almost 20 years and I don't think I can take it anymore. Even though it could mean leaving my state... I think that is going to be what I have to do.
One of my friends who is not vaccinated, I called her and she was in tears. I felt for her because I do think she has some exaggerated ideas about the dangers of the vaccines but she has just been treated horribly. I hope she doesn't do something rash.. like she was thinking about writing a letter with her thoughts. But I warned her that could just put her under greater scrutiny.
It is just never really a surprise but I feel such a rude a horrible email would never had been sent out to employees they liked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sotomayor rejects New York Teachers' request to be heard on vaccine mandate
