Supreme Court rejects challenge to Indiana University's vaccination requirement

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

Ummm, that's not what you said at first. You said that SCOTUS denied the appeal because it's not a constitutional issue. But ... it is? It's a threshold question if what I am reading is correct: are the students' 14th amendment rights likely to hold up at the end of the case so a preliminary injunction should be issued now? I mean, you can't get to "denied" without deciding on the constitutionality of the question itself. 

 

Here's the district court opinion which both the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS said they did not disagree with: 

https://scholar.google.cz/scholar_case?case=17152746327744027819&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

As I said, IANAL but that looks to me like there was a constitutional issue that was decided properly the first time. 

Let me remind you, this is a family friendly site,  You've pointed that out twice now.  Your business is your business.  

 

As to the 14th, let's review the applicable part:

Quote

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Which part was being allegedly violated here?

Edited August 14, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[laylalex 7,284]

Apparently the 14th amendment. Due process. It's in that quote I took from the lower court ruling. Did you read the whole thing? If I have to watch some rando political commentator in Nashville pontificate from start to finish to have an opinion about what he has to say, reading a court ruling--even skimming it-- should be required too. The ruling literally says what the constitutional issue is in the second paragraph. Due process is 14th amendment stuff. It's in the text you quoted at me. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

8 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

Let me remind you, this is a family friendly site,  You've pointed that out twice now.  Your business is your business.  

 

As to the 14th, let's review the applicable part:

Which part was being allegedly violated here?

I agree the abbreviation  for I am not a lawyer is offensive. Anything with Lawyer in it is. The L word should be on the blacklist

[laylalex 7,284]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I agree the abbreviation  for I am not a lawyer is offensive. Anything with Lawyer in it is. The L word should be on the blacklist

I apologize, Nature Boy. How about IANAA? 

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

Apparently the 14th amendment. Due process. It's in that quote I took from the lower court ruling. Did you read the whole thing? If I have to watch some rando political commentator in Nashville pontificate from start to finish to have an opinion about what he has to say, reading a court ruling--even skimming it-- should be required too. The ruling literally says what the constitutional issue is in the second paragraph. Due process is 14th amendment stuff. It's in the text you quoted at me. 

 

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 

You cannot pick and choose which words you wish to focus on.  It's clear enough that anyone with even a modicum of education can understand it.  

 

Unless someone can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the vaccine is depriving a person of one of those three things, then the due process of law isn't even a consideration.

Edited August 14, 2021 by LIBrty4all

[laylalex 7,284]

Like, literally that is the argument the students are making? That's what due process is -- that you get an opportunity to be heard when there's an issue of life, liberty or property at stake involving governmental control. Also, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal standard, and constitutional law is civil law -- different standard. You can't... pick and choose when it comes to standards of proof.  

 

I am... so confused. You can't decide whether or not the students have been deprived of due process without... considering whether they have been deprived of due process... which is a constitutional question involving the 14th Amendment. Like, you can't answer "is that traffic light green or red?" without determining what the color of the light is. Let's say that the answer we're looking for is "green," if we come up with "red" it doesn't mean we didn't consider what the color of the light was in the first place.

 

The ruling in the district court is super clear that this IS a constitutional issue. Just skip to the conclusion.

Quote

 

CONCLUSION

Even assuming in certain respects irreparable harm and an inadequate remedy at law, the students here haven't established a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, or that the balance of harms or the public's interest favors the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction, before a trial on the merits. The court thus DENIES their preliminary injunction motion [ECF 7].

Recognizing the significant liberty interest the students retain to refuse unwanted medical treatment, the Fourteenth Amendment permits Indiana University to pursue a reasonable and due process of vaccination in the legitimate interest of public health for its students, faculty, and staff. Today, on this preliminary record, the university has done so for its campus communities. That leaves the students with multiple choices, not just forced vaccination.

One might well hale a certain Emersonian self-reliance and self-determination as preference—an unfettered right of the individual to choose the vaccine or not—but, given a preliminary record such as today's, the court must exercise judicial restraint in superimposing any personal view in the guise of constitutional interpretation. Reasonable social policy is for the state legislatures and its authorized arms, and for the People to demand through their representatives.

SO ORDERED.

 

https://scholar.google.cz/scholar_case?case=17152746327744027819&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

I feel like we're having a massive disconnect or something here. The ruling says all over it that there's a due process issue relating to liberty that the court has decided, at least in denying the injunction. They couldn't deny the injunction without considering a constitutional issue. Even if they denied it, the issue was still considered. 🤷‍♀️

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 hours ago, LIBrty4all said:

 

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

 

You cannot pick and choose which words you wish to focus on.  It's clear enough that anyone with even a modicum of education can understand it.  

 

Unless someone can show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the vaccine is depriving a person of one of those three things, then the due process of law isn't even a consideration.

Did you get your law degree from the same university as your medical research degree?

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

21 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Did you get your law degree from the same university as your medical research degree?

You don't have the appropriate level of clearance for that info.  Please keep watching CNN for all the latest news.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

21 hours ago, Crtcl Rice Theory said:

Did you get your law degree from the same university as your medical research degree?

Knock off the baiting now, please.

[TBoneTX 45,266]

An inappropriate post has been removed.  Return to respectful discussion of the topic.