That it may also harm you (according to our own DOD’s AI analysis, through JAIC and Project Salus, of over 5.6 million Medicare patients aged 65 and over, using Humetrix-aggregated data) doesn’t appear to factor into any mandate decision.

— At least, so says a second federal judge, this time in Michigan, citing as precedent for his decision the 1905 Jacobson case that involved a vaccine with over 100 years of documented effective use at the time of the ruling, a traditional vaccine that sterilizes against a disease that cannot be found in animal reservoirs, and that provides documented immunity from the virus it vaccinates against.

Further, the Jacobson ruling called for a fine in lieu of vaccination, not the choice between a mandated injection or the loss of livelihood. The judge in this case — brought by Jeanna Norris, a school employee, who was challenging Michigan State University’s vaccine mandate on the grounds that she had acquired and recovered from Covid and could demonstrate immunity to the virus, maing a supplemental vaccine unnecessary and potentially dangerous — apparently missed the Nuremberg Code agreement (which requires informed consent), or every interceding domestic case since 1905, including Casey.

He also seemed to miss that every “vaccine” being administered as part of these mandates is still under EUA, despite the FDA’s sleight of hand when it approved the BioNTech vaccine Comirnaty, that is not available yet in the US (though Pfizer has been kind enough to explain how something deemed “legally distinct” from the available vaccines is in fact not legally distinct, because Pfizer, it turns out, assures us the ingredients of the two vaccines are the same — though we can’t know the full list of ingredients — and Pfizer, it seems, runs the U.S. FDA.)

This ruling, by U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney, a Bush appointee, is essentially a craven judicial punt that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the judiciary studiously avoiding science, and so washing their hands of justice in favor of lazy legal expediency. But it is also an indictment of state government, and the need to vote in Governors who will fight for the Constitutional rights of their state’s constituents. Had Michigan passed a law declaring vaccine mandates a violation of their own state’s civil rights protections, it’s likely a Bush-appointed judge would have sided with the state. Or at least, we’d like to think so.

It is time to admit without hesitation what is happening here: We’re watching the real-time deconstruction of our liberties and the natural rights we lay claim to as enshrined in the Constitution. Though in this case a state college was allowed to deny your rights to determine what investigative product is put in your body under penalty of loss of employment, that such anti-scientific, anti-liberty dictates are happening elsewhere through the collusion and coordination of private businesses goaded by government, Big Pharma, and Big Tech, only makes for a new fascist workaround to our legal system — and renders our Constitution nothing more than a suicide pact.

Just as “libertarians” cheer the cancellation of speech on privately-owned (and bureaucratically protected) “public square platforms,” they, too, will engage in suicide by ideology in cases like this revolving around corporate mandates, applauding judicial rulings that allow private companies to fire you for any reason — save those protected by civil rights law. Which evidently is a threshold your bodily autonomy doesn’t meet, whereas, eg., your skin color or your sexual proclivities do.

Up is down. Black is white. Cagney is Lacey.

The left has long been authoritarian, so we know they’ll cheer on such a ruling. But watching Bush-appointed judges and libertarians marching us toward choosing between slavery and economic / medical survival, is quite dispiriting.

Civil disobedience and federalism are our only remaining insulating defenses. Long ago here on pw — in 2006, in fact — I wrote that I foresaw a soft civil war on the nation’s horizon, where we would have to separate geographically in order to use the bulwark of federalism to maintain our liberties from a coming authoritarian moment. Today, this idea seems to be in fashion on the right — with widely popular cases made for a national divorce, and the competing discussions thereof — whereas when I wrote on it, I was considered an unhelpful heretic by GWB acolytes and leftist academics alike.

But the writing was always on the wall. The federal courts are fine with allowing us to be declared chattel, so long as the de facto owner is private, or in this case — so long as there’s the thinnest judicial predicate on which to allow for your subjugation. We learned nothing from the history of slavery in this country. Or rather, we’ve learned how to bring it back, once again with the imprimatur of the federal courts.