Many of us have been comforted on the question of mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations by President Trump's assurances that vaccines will not be mandatory – but there is at least one way Trump can be trumped, and that is by a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe SCOTUS has just telegraphed its intent to mandate COVID-19 vaccines in a future ruling.
On Friday, July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Steve Sisolak, Governor of Nevada, et al. It was a 5-4 decision in which the snake John Roberts swung the court to the left yet again, upholding an egregious double standard in COVID-19 restrictions on churches as compared specifically to casinos in response to an emergency appeal for an injunction against the governor's dictate by Calvary Chapel. As conservative Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent, there were numerous other categories of secular businesses that received favored status under Sisolak's order.
Most analysts have naturally focused on the religious discrimination implicit in the ruling, especially since the Constitution expressly forbids government from passing any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. That phrase from the First Amendment is one of the most straightforward legal mandates not just of the Bill of Rights, but of all human jurisprudence of the past thousand years, echoing the exact same legislative intent of the first principle of the Magna Carta (1215), "the English church shall be free." And what is balanced against that massive legal foundation stone in John Robert's corrupt scales of justice? A feather-light, arbitrary public health order that exempts gambling casinos and mobs of anarchists. Nothing more need be said on this theme except perhaps a gentle chiding of "the church" for abandoning the mission field of politics to casino magnates and hard-left pressure groups. You are reaping the natural consequence of neglecting your duty of civil stewardship.
Advertisement - story continues below
However, as a long-time Christian constitutional law attorney and social activist, I'm a bit more cynical than most analysts when it comes to the nation's ultimate elite body. Indeed, I have come to consider the judiciary – especially the "Supremes" – as the most political of our three branches of government, at least since Marxist-leaning FDR's court-flipping power play that historians call the "switch in time that saved nine." In that incident, another SCOTUS swing voter, named Owen Roberts (no relation), switched from a consistent conservative to a liberal voter on Roosevelt's New Deal legislation (the Commie Red New Deal, not the Fascist Green one) – essentially succumbing to blackmail to prevent Roosevelt from packing the court with nine additional justices (expanding it to 18 seats).
What struck me hardest from the Calvary Chapel ruling – in fact sending a chill down my spine – was the majority's emphasis on Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) as justification for upholding Sisolak's public health order. Jacobson is a case upholding mandatory vaccinations! To quote Alito directly: "Jacobson primarily involved a substantive due process challenge to a local ordinance requiring residents to be vaccinated for small pox."
What the Calvary Chapel ruling looks like to me is an advanced warning that the same liberal majority is preparing the public for mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations, knowing that the controversial nature of their anti-Christian double standard ensures that their endorsement of Jacobson will get lots of attention especially among the people most likely to oppose the vaccine.
Does the Supreme Court really engage in social engineering on behalf of the globalists? It absolutely does – especially when it comes to anything related to Christian sexual morality!
Advertisement - story continues below
There is substantial evidence of judicial social engineering on the abortion issue, especially between the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 and the Carhart "partial birth abortion" ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) in which then-swing vote Sandra Day O'Connor voted to uphold the killing of full-term babies at the point of delivery – after describing it during oral argument in open court as "a gruesome procedure" (a fact of which I was an eyewitness).
However, judicial social engineering is best exemplified in the court's establishment of "gay" cultural supremacy by swing vote Anthony Kennedy between Romer v. Evans in 1996 and Obergefell v Hodges in 2015. He wrote the majority opinion in all four of the landmark cases. Most telling was his majority opinion in Romer declaring essentially that public morality cannot be the basis for law, and later in Lawrence v. Texas expressly justifying his very broad ruling that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (the 1986 legal cornerstone of states rights to regulate sexual conduct in the public interest), specifically to remove the "stigma" against homosexuality in society.
On the post-Lawrence "gay marriage" issue, the social engineering function of the court became most obvious. First Ruth Bader Ginsburg cryptically telegraphed in a speech at the University of Chicago law school that the then-imminent U.S. v. Windsor ruling (striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act) was NOT going to declare a constitutional right to homosexual "marriage." She did that by controversially opining that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because is was issued before the country was ready for it, creating the anti-abortion movement.
Ginsburg's purpose was to lower the expectations of the leftist elites who were giddy with anticipation of getting "gay marriage" in 2012. After Windsor, the lower federal courts slowly but systematically dismantled the state Defense of Marriage laws over the next two years, creating a sense of inevitability in the public in preparation for Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Both Elena Kagan and Ginsburg took the extraordinary additional steps of performing same-sex "marriages" during the pendency of Obergefell, Ginsburg doing so in the Supreme Court building itself. It worked, and the public simply acquiesced to both to "gay marriage" and Kagan and Ginsburg's destruction of the most important ethical standard of the court: the presumption of impartiality.
Am I absolutely convinced that SCOTUS will rule that local and/or state governments can mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for citizens in their jurisdiction? No. Do I believe it is more likely based on the Calvary Chapel case? Sadly, yes. And considering that even the conservative states have caved to public health officials on mask and lockdown mandates, the only hope I can see for avoiding mandatory vaccines is a Trump reelection accompanied either by 1) full GOP control of Congress, or 2) a quick flip of SCOTUS to a conservative majority.