Dems Use SCOTUS Ruling With A Dark History To Justify Biden Mandate

The Supreme Court Case cited by Democrats to justify Biden’s COVID mandate has a very dark history and it’s no wonder why they like it.

Democrats are using the case known as Jacobson v. Massachusetts, in which the high court ruled the State of Massachusetts was allowed to impose a forced vaccination mandate on the city of Cambridge that was experiencing a smallpox outbreak.

During the outbreak in Cambridge police officers traveled door to door with health officials trying to vaccinate as many people as they could. If a person refused vaccination they were fined $5 which is equal to about $150 today.

After a dust up in the press Jacobson decided to fight the fine.

In 1905 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts, from History.com:

The Supreme Court rejected Jacobson’s argument and dealt the anti-vaccination movement a stinging loss. Writing for the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan acknowledged the fundamental importance of personal freedom, but also recognized that “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to suchrestraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”

This decision established what became known as the “reasonableness” test. The government had the authority to pass laws that restricted individual liberty, if those restrictions—including the punishment for violating them—were found by the Court to be a reasonable means for achieving a public good.

In the 1920s that decision provided the legal justification for the State Of Virginia to begin involuntary sterilization of the “feeble-minded.” The state had passed eugenics laws and were sterilizing woman, minorities, and the mentally ill.

The Jacobson v Massachusetts ruling was used in an even more disturbing SOCTUS case that cleared the way for 24 states to pass involuntary sterilization laws and over 60,000 women were sterilized.

“The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes (Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11). Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a chilling opinion.

Not one judge wrote a dissenting opinion.

This is the legal case that the Biden administration is using to justify his mandate.