The info I shared came directly from the Health Freedom Defense Fund's announcement (headline: HUGE Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit), which also includes this:
"On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s…
The info I shared came directly from the Health Freedom Defense Fund's announcement (headline: HUGE Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit), which also includes this:
"On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox. The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine."
I don't think I said anything about a factual ruling, but appreciate the additional info!
Correct, you did not say anything about a factual ruling per se. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. My apologies.
But some of what is alleged by all the press releases and commentaries is that the Court made some final determination that the vaccine isn't a vaccine, or similar, and they simply did not say that. They only said, in essence, that this factual issue should have its day in Court.
And I like you would normally rely on HFDF, David Martin and RFK, Jr. Don't blame you at all. But they aren't getting this story right, and they should know better.
Fair enough. Maybe we're ALL (not you; I mean, myself and the group you mentioned) guilty of wishful thinking? Appreciate the nuance and you taking the time to share. :)
I think that your statement that the "court *determines* that COVID vaccines aren't vaccines" [emphasis my own], per HFDFs rather loosely worded announcement, is not precisely what happened. My understanding of what happened is that, previously, the District Court had dismissed HFDF's case in agreement with LAUSD's defense that Jacobson v. Massachusetts states that the government has a right to insist on that citizens get vaccinated. What HFDF succeeded in doing upon appeal was to persuade the judges that a closer reading of JvM shows that the state's interest is limited to stopping the spread of a disease. They also showed that LAUSD had provided no evidence to show that the jabs stopped transmission. The Court ruling states that the District Court erred in its understanding of JvM as per where the state's interest in lies - that is, they agreed with HFDF that JvM does not give any state a blanket right to force vaccinations, but does demand efficacy. They therefore stated that HFDF's allegation that the jabs are a medical treatment, not a vaccination per JvM was based on a reasonable viewpoint. The Appellate Court thereby vacated the District Court's dismissal of the HFDF's case and said that the trail should continue. This is not a ruling stating that the jabs are not vaccines, but that HFDF's viewpoint is a reasonable one and dismissal unwarranted.
So, this ball is still very much in play, though the Court's ruling is a wonderful first step.
And, I apologize for the long post. I come from a long line of people who engage in legal argumentation for sport. Hugs and love!
Do not apologize!!! I'm a big girl and can handle being wrong. Appreciate the comment (and your note that the ruling is a wonderful first step, phew!). :)
The info I shared came directly from the Health Freedom Defense Fund's announcement (headline: HUGE Legal Victory – HFDF Wins Appeal in Ninth Circuit), which also includes this:
"On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox. The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine."
I don't think I said anything about a factual ruling, but appreciate the additional info!
Correct, you did not say anything about a factual ruling per se. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. My apologies.
But some of what is alleged by all the press releases and commentaries is that the Court made some final determination that the vaccine isn't a vaccine, or similar, and they simply did not say that. They only said, in essence, that this factual issue should have its day in Court.
And I like you would normally rely on HFDF, David Martin and RFK, Jr. Don't blame you at all. But they aren't getting this story right, and they should know better.
Fair enough. Maybe we're ALL (not you; I mean, myself and the group you mentioned) guilty of wishful thinking? Appreciate the nuance and you taking the time to share. :)
You know I love you, Jenna!
I think that your statement that the "court *determines* that COVID vaccines aren't vaccines" [emphasis my own], per HFDFs rather loosely worded announcement, is not precisely what happened. My understanding of what happened is that, previously, the District Court had dismissed HFDF's case in agreement with LAUSD's defense that Jacobson v. Massachusetts states that the government has a right to insist on that citizens get vaccinated. What HFDF succeeded in doing upon appeal was to persuade the judges that a closer reading of JvM shows that the state's interest is limited to stopping the spread of a disease. They also showed that LAUSD had provided no evidence to show that the jabs stopped transmission. The Court ruling states that the District Court erred in its understanding of JvM as per where the state's interest in lies - that is, they agreed with HFDF that JvM does not give any state a blanket right to force vaccinations, but does demand efficacy. They therefore stated that HFDF's allegation that the jabs are a medical treatment, not a vaccination per JvM was based on a reasonable viewpoint. The Appellate Court thereby vacated the District Court's dismissal of the HFDF's case and said that the trail should continue. This is not a ruling stating that the jabs are not vaccines, but that HFDF's viewpoint is a reasonable one and dismissal unwarranted.
So, this ball is still very much in play, though the Court's ruling is a wonderful first step.
And, I apologize for the long post. I come from a long line of people who engage in legal argumentation for sport. Hugs and love!
Do not apologize!!! I'm a big girl and can handle being wrong. Appreciate the comment (and your note that the ruling is a wonderful first step, phew!). :)