This is from the Supreme Court over 100 years ago:

Heck… they’ve dismissed a number of cases in recent weeks because the case is such firm precedent.

My poorly understood understanding is that Jacobsen is not relevant if the Feds do it. More bullshit state’s rights crap.

My poorly understood understanding is that Jacobsen is not relevant if the Feds do it. More bullshit state’s rights crap.

Not BS at all. It's actually pretty straightforward. Jacobsen makes clear that states have this authority because the power is part of the "police powers" that the states retain (under the 10th Amendment)... but that the federal government was never granted in the Constitution.

…to wreak maximum havoc in ways that are worse for the country.

That's so cute that you think that the Constitution necessarily says whatever you (a quarter of a millennia later) think makes the most sense from a policy perspective.

Nevertheless - what I gave you is far from "BS" - regardless of what might make better policy today.

Jacobsen does indeed recognize the state's power to mandate vaccines and that it comes from the state's police powers. Other SCOTUS cases that are almost as old (e.g., Carter v Carter Coal Co) show that the federal government lacks those police powers. In fact, it's the classic example for what the 10th Amendment is talking about.

Note as evidence that there have been thousands of vaccine mandates since Jacobsen, and all of them (with the exception of the federal government's role as an employer - as with the military) have been issued by the states. We can take as further evidence that all of the challenges to state-level Covid vaccination requirements have been rapidly denied (even by right-wing courts) - while the federal mandate was immediately blocked.

On edit - a little more

My apologies for the knee-jerk reaction

all had enacted and enforced protections on this continent for over a couple hundred years before.

Incredibly important. Before even the invention of antibiotics, epidemic disease outbreaks that devastated families, neighorhoods, towns were common, and keeping them from spreading a matter of life and death.

People lived a lot closer to death in those days, especially their children, and lived with the reality that it really could happen to them. At any time.

Cited to justify sterilization of mentally challenged individuals.

More recently cited to halt abortions in Texas as a C19 measure.

There are some out there that will still refuse, no matter how much we try to negotiate them into the shot. I wonder if this is all in futility. If there's even one person not vaxxed, it's all for nothing

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Most obviously, if there is only one person not vaxxed, they wouldn't be infecting anybody. But it seems logic did not occur to you.

The goal, as things have developed and turned out, is to have about 80% of all citizens 12 or over vaccinated. 100% is not needed to achieve herd immunity, especially as some in the 20% will have acquired some immunity by surviving a Covid infection.

The REAL GOAL is to get 75-80% global vaccination to deny breeding grounds for mutated variants.

From rightwing as possible. Please don't insult me like that. I really felt like I found a warm group of like minded people. This really hurts. My frustration with the antivaxxers was what I was trying to portray.

DU is a warm place for like minded people, but there is not much tolerance for nonsense. We see it a lot on red websites. Thus I was startled by your post. They say there that the vaccines don't work because they are not 100% effective and there will never be 100% vaccination.

there was never a 100% vaccination rate for any disease, but we've conquered many infectious diseases. It is not realistic to expect every person, everywhere will be vaccinated, but if enough are, we can control the spread.

Welcome to DU!

For the warm hello patseg

Is turning everything to the States I suggest we get get rid of the Supreme Court. We do not need them any more!

The Supreme Court is painting itself into a corner and cementing its irrelevance as a neutral arbiter of the law. Once the Court is seen as a political body, it is useless in our Democracy.

I think there are only two possible remedies to this constitutional disaster. One, disband the Supreme Court and let governance become a strictly political tussle. Or Two, increase the bull pen of justices and make sure justices are rotated onto an individual case with equal numbers of conservative and progressive members to force them to come to a mutually agreeable apolitical decision.

One thing is certain, they have to change. The last 3 testified abortion was a settle case. Yet here they are changing it. They all lied in their testimony to Congress and need to be punished, just like those who defy Congress.

That seems to be where the balance toward fairness has become skewed. We have a USSC wherein the conservative executives have exercised nomination prerogatives far more often than the progressives despite their time in executive office being less. Unfair, bad for democracy and justice. Did you notice how Trump got 3 justices through in 4 years while Obama got only 2 justices through in 8 years?

The Senate should elect to restrain itself in a requirement to immediately recognize the nomination of and vote up or down on any USSC nominations from the executive office. That the Senate must have a yes/no vote within, say, 10 days after receiving a president's nomination. Theoretically, a same day nomination/confirmation process. And all this regardless of the president's remaining term in office. Even if their term ends at noon of a day when the justice retires at 11:59 am, if they get their nomination recognized by the senate before 12:00 noon, that president's nominee will still receive a senate vote within 10 days. Even into the next president's term.

Oh, and BTW use the same methodology for all federal judges as well.

It's not complicated. It's fair, doable and reasonable. Accomplishes the greatest justice with the least disruption. That it minimizes politicization of the process is probably why no one's suggested or tried it.

I do see how the senate could simply vote down any nominee until the president's term is over but that's already the senate's option. I even kind of like the voting part about it. What becomes outlawed is the senate's refusal to vote at all.

About the babies afterwards, we just need more of them! (Crazy psychos)

“Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”

In comedy. Mr. Carlin was a wonderful outlet for the voice of the left. RIP

George was married to the aunt of my Son’s best friend. He visited Englewood often.

That does not make me important. just an observation. We always heard the funny stories.

Spanish flu? Smallpox?

and their governments, not the nation as a whole and the federal government. That is what the RW is using to support local anti vax, anti mask laws and their claim that the federal government cannot intervene with local laws or make national mandates.

During the flu pandemic in 1918-1920 various communities had very different responses. Some aggressive, some nothing at all. The federal government had no response at all. President Wilson never mentioned the pandemic once in any public remarks.

the flu pandemic, he intentionally ignored it and refused to take any precautions about the spread of it among troops.

as well as the media and all of the anti mandate idiots