• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


The 9th Circuit Just Stripped mRNA Shots of Legal Liability Protection

Swordsmyth

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
72,935
The 9th Circuit Just Stripped mRNA Shots of Legal Liability Protection

The 9th Circuit said it's not a vaccine if the claim isn't PREVENT THE SPREAD.

COVID shots were claimed to "reduce symptoms" and prevent hospitalization… Those claims make it a TREATMENT. pic.twitter.com/HnDuIAwbV9— DR JANE RUBY (@RealDrJaneRuby) June 8, 2024

https://x.com/RealDrJaneRuby/status/1799230901626569184

 
Oh boy a screenshot with some underlines this definitely won't turn out to be taken out of context
 
https://healthfreedomdefense.org/huge-legal-victory-hfdf-wins-appeal-in-ninth-circuit/

Health Freedom Defense Fund (HFDF), California Educators for Medical Freedom, and individual plaintiffs have won their appeal in the Ninth Circuit on LAUSD’s Employee Covid Vaccination Mandate.

Health Freedom Defense Fund et. al have won a significant victory in the Ninth Circuit, which reversed dismissal of their lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (“LAUSD”) mandatory vaccination policy for all employees.

Reversing the decision of the Central District of California in Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit majority held that, first, the case was not mooted by LAUSD’s rescission of the mandate after oral argument last September, 2023. The majority called out LAUSD’s gamesmanship for what it was – a bald-faced attempt at avoiding an adverse ruling by trying to create an issue of mootness.

Unfortunately for LAUSD, they had already done this once in the trial court. Applying the voluntary cessation doctrine, the majority doubted LAUSD’s sincerity in rescinding the mandate immediately after an unfavorable oral argument in September of last year.

On the merits, the majority ruled that the district court had misapplied the Supreme Court’s 1905 decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts when it dismissed LAUSD’s lawsuit on grounds that the mandate was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In Jacobson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a smallpox vaccination mandate because it related to “preventing the spread” of smallpox.

The majority, however, noted that HFDF had alleged in the lawsuit that the COVID jabs are not “traditional” vaccines because they do not prevent the spread of COVID-19 but only purport to mitigate COVID symptoms in the recipient. This, HFDF had alleged in its complaint, makes the COVID jab a medical treatment, not a vaccine.

The court recognized that mitigating symptoms rather than preventing the spread of disease “distinguishes Jacobson, thus presenting a different government interest.” Based on this reasoning, the majority disapproved the trial court’s contention that, even if the jabs do not prevent the spread, “Jacobson still dictates that the vaccine mandate is subject to, and survives, the rational basis test.”

The court held that “[t]his misapplies Jacobson,” which “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.”’ Jacobson does not, the majority concluded, extend to “forced medical treatment” for the benefit of the recipient.

The court declined to give any deference to pronouncements by the CDC that the “COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.” As the court asked rhetorically, “safe and effective” for what? The majority pointed to HFDF’s allegation that CDC had changed the definition of “vaccine” in September 2021, striking the word “immunity” from that definition. The court also noted HFDF’s citations to CDC statements that the vaccines do not prevent transmission, and that natural immunity is superior to the vaccines.

In a separate concurrence, Judge Collins wrote that the district court “further erred by failing to realize that [HFDF’s] allegations directly implicate a distinct and more recent line of Supreme Court authority” for the proposition that “a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment[.]” Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Washington v. Glucksberg, Judge Collins noted that the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment is “entirely consistent with this Nation’s history and constitutional traditions,” and that HFDF’s allegations in this case “are sufficient to invoke that fundamental right.”

HFDF president, Leslie Manookian stated,

“The Ninth Circuit ruling today demonstrates that the court saw through LAUSD’s monkey business, and in so doing, it made clear that American’s cherished rights to self determination, including the sacred right of bodily autonomy in matters of health, are not negotiable. This is a great triumph for the truth, decency, and what is right.”
 
If it is not a vaccine and it doesn't do what all those people that were trying to get American's to take it said it does, shouldn't all those people be liable?

Oh I get it now, COVID was a disease of the unvaccinated. That is because no one was ever vaccinated.
 
This never even would have happened under Trump's SCOTUS

???
What are you talking about? this happened in the 9th circus, and Trump's SCOTUS has not changed under Biden, Biden replaced one leftist with another and the court is the same.
Trump's SCOTUS will not overrule this absolutely correct ruling, whether you think they would have accepted the case if the 9th had ruled the other way or not.
 
Last edited:
???
What are you talking about? this happened in the 9th circus...

Throw in a few more question marks. I don't think you typed enough to truly demonstrate the depth of your confusion.

200tzz.jpg
 
Last edited:
Throw in a few more question marks. I don't think you typed enough to truly demonstrate the depth of your confusion.

200tzz.jpg
I see you are ignorant of the nickname of the most overturned circuit court in the nation.
When even the 9th gets this right there is no way SCOTUS as improved by Trump's picks will get it wrong if it goes to them.
 
I see you are ignorant of the nickname of the most overturned circuit court in the nation.

Guess so. I don't listen to the MSM-Right to stay up on the dog whistles any more than I depend on the MSM-Left to tell me what to be angry about today.

No wonder you're confused. For example, you seem unclear on just what administration it was that tried to grant Big Pharma this protection from liability for their own negligence and malfeasance. That's why they get you caught up in minutiae and try to make you feel like a club with your little inside jokes. Distracts you from your own hypocrisy and foolishness in depending on Trump to undo the damage Trump did in the first place.

IMG_9700.jpeg


IMG_9701.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I see you are ignorant of the nickname of the most overturned circuit court in the nation.
When even the 9th gets this right there is no way SCOTUS as improved by Trump's picks will get it wrong if it goes to them.


Let me get this straight.

The 9th circuit repudiates Trump in a ruling, which you call the right ruling....Kudos to you for admitting that, by the way. That's uncharacteristic of you.

And the 9th circuit is the most overruled court.

But this time, the 9th circuit won't be overruled. Because they were right. And the SCOTUS that would overrule them if it did overrule them is Trump's SCOTUS, and because it's Trump's SCOTUS it won't overrule a ruling that repudiates Trump coming from the most overruled circuit court.

Got it.
 
If it is not a vaccine and it doesn't do what all those people that were trying to get American's to take it said it does, shouldn't all those people be liable?

Oh I get it now, COVID was a disease of the unvaccinated. That is because no one was ever vaccinated.

I would surmise once it was common knowledge it did not prevent spread yes everyone still peddling something known not to work is liable, no logical reason not.
 
Last edited:
Since reward was so limited even if existed people most at risk of vast side effects would have recourse for ill effects from info not given .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top