Acquired robust immunity is no defense against a mandated vaccine that can’t bring you to acquired robust immunity.

That it may also harm you is also not in factor in any mandate.

At least, so says a second federal judge, this one in Michigan, citing as precedent the 1905 Jacobson case that involved a vaccine with over 100 years in use, and that sterilized against a disease that cannot be hosted in animal reservoirs. Also? The ruling allowed for a fine in lieu of vaccination, not the choice between a mandated injection or the loss of livelihood. The judge apparently missed the Nuremberg agreements, or every interceding case, including Casey.

It was, essentially, a craven judicial punt. The ruling 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 legal expediency.

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 here, 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 bodily autonomy doesn’t meet, whereas, eg., your skin color or your sexual proclivities do.

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 defenses. Long ago here — in 2006, in fact — I wrote that I foresaw a soft civil war, where we would have to separate geographically in order to maintain our liberties from a coming authoritarian moment. Today, this idea seems to be in fashion on the right, whereas when I wrote on it, I was considered an unhelpful heretic.

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.