A lower court had dismissed a lawsuit by employees resisting California's (of course) continuing vaccine mandates, even after all we know now.
What is really galling is that the body imposing the vaccine mandate -- the LA Unified School District, or LAUSD -- keeps changing the vaccine mandate as this case comes close to trial, then moves to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot, because the mandate has been repealed.
Then, after a court obliges and dismisses the lawsuit, they immediately re-institute the vaccine mandate.
Then the plaintiffs re-file the lawsuit, then the LAUSD removes the vaccine mandate, and files a motion to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.
Then they reinstate the mandate again.
They are gaming the courts -- and the corrupt lower court judge was happy to continue allowing them to play this game forever.
But the Ninth Circuit, surprisingly, was not willing to go along with this con.
Flopping Aces quotes from the decision:
LAUSD's pattern of withdrawing and then reinstating its vaccination policies is enough to keep this case alive. Twice LAUSD has withdrawn its policy only after facing some litigation risk.
Litigants who have already demonstrated their willingness to tactically manipulate the federal courts in this way should not be given any benefit of the doubt. LAUSD's about-face occurred only after vigorous questioning at argument in this court, which suggests that it was motivated, at least in part, by litigation tactics.
This case is not moot.
Even better, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower court was wrong to rely on a precedent called Jacobsen for the proposition that the state has a compelling interest in mandating vaccines which stop infection -- because the covid "vaccines" do not stop infection.
The Court held that while the state may have the power to mandate an actual vaccine for the sake of protecting others from infection, it cannot mandate people to get vaccines which do not stop infection of others, merely for the putative benefit of the person being forced to take the jab.
In Jacobson, the Supreme Court balanced an individual's liberty interest in declining an unwanted smallpox vaccine against the State's interest in preventing disease. The Court explained that the "principle of vaccination" is "to prevent the spread of smallpox."
Jacobson, however, did not involve a claim in which the compelled vaccine was "designed to reduce symptoms in the infected vaccine recipient rather than to prevent transmission and infection."
The district court thus erred in holding that Jacobson extends beyond its public health rationale--government's power to mandate prophylactic measures aimed at preventing the recipient from spreading disease to others--to also govern "forced medical treatment" for the recipient's benefit.
Finally, one of the judges -- not the full three-judge panel -- recognized a liberty interest in refusing vaccinations. But you should hit the link for that.
At the same time, people are breaking out with new "turbo cancers."
Some speculate that the new "turbo cancers" are caused by... Oh, who knows, maybe it could be the untested genetic therapy we were all required to undergo.
But the Washington Post says that's Russian Disinformation.
The real culprit? The covid virus itself.
David Strom is sick of the left's game of telling everyone that no speculations are permitted except for the left's speculations, and all unproven theories are conspiracy theories that must be stamped out... except for the left's unproven theories.
Which you're required to believe, until these are proven to be yet more lies from the far left and the Media-Government Complex.
Respiratory viruses have zero history of causing cancer, as some other viruses do.
But we are supposed to believe that for the first time a respiratory virus is responsible for a mysterious spike in rare cancers (and so-called "turbo cancers") being seen in the United States and other Western countries.
Generally speaking, I have refrained from writing about the apparent link between the mRNA vaccines and cancer, because everything is anecdotal so far, and some increases in cancer in young people actually predate the pandemic and are thus linked to some other, unknown variable.
But since The Washington Post has written an article linking the COVID virus to an increase in rare cancers, I feel I have a right to comment.
The article is ridiculous. It goes out of its way to link the virus to cancer, while admitting that this would be the first time that a respiratory virus caused cancer.
Hmm. I wonder what else is unique about the past few years? Unique link to cancer. Unique kind of genetically modified injection.
Obviously, there can't be a connection, right? Because these injections are A VERY GOOD THING(TM) and utterly unquestionable.
See the article for more.