In a statement made on May 18th on a case concerning Title 42, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch breaks the painful silence on the topic of lockdowns and mandates, and presents the truth with startling clarity. Importantly, this statement from the Supreme Court comes as so many other agencies, intellectuals, and journalists are in flat-out denial of what happened to the country.
[T]he history of this case illustrates the disruption we have experienced over the last three years in how our laws are made and our freedoms observed.Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes.
They shuttered businesses and schools public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.
They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct. They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.
Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide.They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans.
They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.
While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress – the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws – too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few – but hardly all – of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.
Doubtless, many lessons can be learned from this chapter in our history, and hopefully serious efforts will be made to study it. One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.
A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force. We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties – the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes.
We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms. Of course, this is no new story. Even the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.
But maybe we have learned another lesson too. The concentration of power in the hands of so few may be efficient and sometimes popular. But it does not tend toward sound government. However wise one person or his advisors may be, that is no substitute for the wisdom of the whole of the American people that can be tapped in the legislative process.
Decisions produced by those who indulge no criticism are rarely as good as those produced after robust and uncensored debate. Decisions announced on the fly are rarely as wise as those that come after careful deliberation. Decisions made by a few often yield unintended consequences that may be avoided when more are consulted. Autocracies have always suffered these defects. Maybe, hopefully, we have relearned these lessons too.
In the 1970s, Congress studied the use of emergency decrees. It observed that they can allow executive authorities to tap into extraordinary powers. Congress also observed that emergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them; some federal emergency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed.
At the same time, Congress recognized that quick unilateral executive action is sometimes necessary and permitted in our constitutional order. In an effort to balance these considerations and ensure a more normal operation of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, Congress adopted a number of new guardrails in the National Emergencies Act.
Despite that law, the number of declared emergencies has only grown in the ensuing years. And it is hard not to wonder whether, after nearly a half-century and in light of our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. It is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.
At the very least, one can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manipulate our docket to perpetuate a decree designed for one emergency to address another. Make no mistake – decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in marks the culmination of his three-year effort to oppose the Covid regime’s eradication of civil liberties, unequal application of law, and political favouritism. From the outset, Gorsuch remained vigilant as public officials used the pretext of Covid to augment their power and strip the citizenry of its rights in defiance of long standing constitutional principles.
While other justices (even some purported constitutionalists) absconded their responsibility to uphold the Bill of Rights, Gorsuch diligently defended the Constitution. This became most apparent in the Supreme Court’s cases involving religious liberty in the Covid era.
Beginning in May 2020, the Supreme Court heard cases challenging Covid restrictions on religious attendance across the country. The Court was divided along familiar political lines: the liberal bloc of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted to uphold deprivations of liberty as a valid exercise of states’ police power; Justice Gorsuch led conservatives Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas in challenging the irrationality of the edicts; Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, justifying his decision by deferring to public health experts.
“Unelected judiciary lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people,” Roberts wrote in South Bay v. Newsom, the first Covid case to reach the Court.
And so the Court repeatedly upheld executive orders attacking religious liberty. In South Bay, the Court denied a California church’s request to block state restrictions on church attendance in a five to four decision. Roberts sided with the liberal bloc, urging deference to the public health apparatus as constitutional freedoms disappeared from American life.
In July 2020, the Court again split 5-4 and denied a church’s emergency motion for injunctive relief against Nevada’s Covid restrictions. Governor Steve Sisolak capped religious gatherings at 50 people, regardless of the precautions taken or the size of the establishment. The same order allowed for other groups, including casinos, to hold up to 500 people. The Court, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the liberal justices again, denied the motion in an unsigned motion without explanation.
Justice Gorsuch issued a one paragraph dissent that exposed the hypocrisy and irrationality of the Covid regime. “Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen ‘multiplex’ may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there,” he wrote. But the Governor’s lockdown order imposed a 50-worshiper limit for religious gatherings, no matter the buildings’ capacities.
“The First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion,” Gorsuch wrote. “But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favour Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.”
Gorsuch understood the threat to Americans’ liberties, but he was powerless with Chief Justice Roberts cowing to the interests of the public health bureaucracy. That changed when Justice Ginsburg died in September 2020.
The following month, Justice Barrett joined the Court and reversed the Court’s 5-4 split on religious freedom in the Covid era. The following month, the Court granted an emergency injunction to block Governor Cuomo’s executive order that limited attendance at religious services to 10 to 25 people.
Gorsuch was now in the majority, protecting Americans from the tyranny of unconstitutional edicts. In a concurring opinion in the New York case, he again compared restrictions on secular activities and religious gatherings; “according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians… Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”
In February 2021, California religious organisations appealed for an emergency injunction against Governor Newsom’s Covid restriction. At the time, Newsom prohibited indoor worship in certain areas and banned singing. Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Kavanaugh and Barrett, upheld the ban on singing but overturned the capacity limits.
Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion, joined by Thomas and Alito, that continued his critique of the authoritarian and irrational deprivations of America’s liberty as Covid entered its second year. He wrote, “Government actors have been moving the goalposts on pandemic-related sacrifices for months, adopting new benchmarks that always seem to put restoration of liberty just around the corner.”
Like his opinions in New York and Nevada, he focused on the disparate treatment and political favouritism behind the edicts; “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”
Thursday’s opinion allowed Gorsuch to review the devastating loss of liberty Americans suffered over the 1,141 days it took to flatten the curve.
This article was first published by the Brownstone Institute.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I have just posted this article in the previous thread but it definitely belongs here.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/researchers-call-urgent-action-address-mass-contamination-blood-supply/5858209
“Blood contaminated with prion-like structures from the spike protein raises the risk of inducing fatal neurodegenerative diseases in recipients. The potential transmission of harmful proteins through exosomes (“shedding”) and the risk of autoimmune diseases due to the vaccines’ mechanism and components like lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are other major concerns
Proposals for managing blood collection include rigorous donor interviews, deferral periods, and a suite of tests to ensure the safety of blood products
The researchers advocate for comprehensive testing of both jabbed and unjabbed individuals to assess the safety of blood products and suggest discarding blood products contaminated with spike proteins or modified mRNA until effective removal methods have been developed
They call for suspending all gene-based “vaccines” and conducting a rigorous harm-benefit assessment in light of the serious health injuries reported. They also urge countries and organizations to take concrete steps to address and mitigate the already identified risks”
*
A most readable and worrying article.
On a separate topic, I do wish the irksome down-voters could be identified, a la Conservative Woman articles. Their contributors seem to suffer far less from mischievous down-voters, who like naughty children rap on the door and scoot off in anonymity. Perhaps they’d think twice if they were named.
I find the downvoters amusing, as you say, very much like naughty children. I definitely have a couple of trolls who simply downvote anything I post.
Watch this space.
27 up 9 down at the time of writing this.
It’s only Hamster Dick and the Scroteless Wonders. Don’t mind the ever-present shit-munching, shadow-lurking pilot fish. Personally, I find that if I’ve not ate enough roughage to keep up with demands they do quite well on just the barnacles until I get my second wind. They’ll be along to provide the proof of this in just a tick, you watch. They get the hump if I go too long without acknowledging their presence.
( 3,2,1…GO!! )
They must lurk with finger poised and senses sharpened ready to pounce and down vote in an instant. Sexual repression I guess. Sad tuesdays.
Thanks shit-munchers. I knew you’d come through for me.
You’re nothing if not predictable.
Here’s a small token of my appreciation:
I’m glad to see that it’s not just me (with my “constant complaining”) that finds this behaviour regrettable.
I wouldn’t necessarily be in favour of forcing people to reveal themselves, but I do think it’s kind of pointless especially in a place where I think we are all looking to further our understanding of the world.
Some coherent scientific arguments from the downtickers would be welcome.
Maybe both sides could learn things?
Stop whinging, and scoot right back to the Maryolater Woman articles.
It would be beneficial if up and down voters had to pay the minimum £5 subscription a month …. not sure that that is the case.
A cracking article.
Much to commend in Herbert Spencer’s theory which is why blood transfusions received from “vaccine” contaminated donors must inevitably be dangerous.
Quite. The same tribe who inflicted the blood transfusion scandal on its victims should be in prison, not doling out more blood contaminated with gunk of which nobody knows the long-term dangers.
Yes, ”anti-vaxxers will be the death of us”, blah blah. Remember the incessant tripe spewed by these professional shysters who now want to suck up to you just to get your vote?
https://x.com/JacquiDeevoy1/status/1795404922726367731
”Anti-vaxxers cost lives”…Well at least this poor guy wasn’t one of those. He got the vax ( probably because he listened to Starmer et al ) and subsequently died long before his time due to ”coincidence”. But imagine how much worse it would’ve been? He could’ve been piloting the plane you were on! These sorts of stories are all over online, sadly;
”England: A dad suffering
with indigestion died suddenly.
“I’ve Had My Covid Vaccine”
“Stephen McGowan ‘healthy’ 44-year-old died on a family trip in the Lake District.
“Its believed it was a symptom of a blood clot which caused a fatal heart attack.”
https://x.com/tulloch1978/status/1794864094190985332
It was well known in the 19th c that quackcines murdered and maimed, and saved no one. Alfred Russel Wallace the spiritualist-hermetic quasi natualist; wrote a very good book on this topic using the government’s own stats to destroy their narrative of the safe and effective (the marketing for the poisons has not changed in 200 years).
In his 1885 letter to Parliament, Wallace calls out the fraud of vaccination:
After 70 years of quacking the greatest smallpox death spree occurred in 1871 – 44 K dead in the UK – by law everyone had to be stabbinated. Why then the worst smallpox epidemic in the ‘modern’ era?
No efficacy and lots of harm – the same we experienced with the mRNA fraud during the recent plandemic. Nothing has changed.
Instead of paper clip boy, maybe Wallace instead as the patron saint of the Quackcine Sceptics.
https://peakd.com/health/@reddust/where-did-the-first-anti-vaxxers-come-from
Leicester was the scene of severe rioting in 1885 when forced vaccinations were rejected by the city’s population.
Coincidentally, or not most probably, Leicester was the first whole city placed in to Lockdown during the Scamdemic. The Davos Deviants do like their history.
https://off-guardian.org/2024/05/28/and-the-bird-flu-just-keeps-on-coming/
Kit Knightly at Off-G is still confident that ‘bird ‘flu’ will be used for Billy’s next “pandemic” and probably H5N1 and for which the “vaccines” undoubtedly have already been brewed. The Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and the International Health Regulations hiccups must be a real PIA to Billy and his DD mates.
I don’t think it will be long now.
Nah, everyone knows it’s going to be ‘Monkeybollox: The Sequel’. When does Pride kick off again…..? Obviously it will just be pure correlation and not at all caused by the sudden increase in men attending leather fetish S&M orgies where no-one bothers to use a condom. That would be too much of a stretch ( ”Oooh Missus!” ), therefore don’t kill granny and get vaccinated now!!
Well, every single chicken now has to be registered and will no doubt be destroyed “when” the next scamdemic is announced ….. thereby ensuring that egg consumption will be prevented.
Exactly.
Why on earth do chickens need passports?
Oh, of course, Billy’s next Scamdemic.
The only good thing to come out of covid and the modified RNA ie GMO’s is an ever increasing awareness of the dangers of even traditional vaccines.
This is perhaps the most sensible paper I’ve read regarding vaccinations in general.
Should be freely available in every GP’s practice, med schools and all NHS departments.
Even better if Doctors actually read it instead of being in thrall to bigpharma :-
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/determining-the-risks-and-benefits?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=748806&post_id=144975313&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=x6a6a&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Thanks for the link. A good but very long read.
After reading this it would appear that far from doing good “vaccines” actually cause multiple harms.
For some of us the C1984 has been a blessing in disguise particularly where medicine, as a subject is concerned.
Indeed .
Hopefully it will open a few eyes.
Do you know that wild animals don’t get cancer – Sir Macfarane Burnet, Nobel prize, immunogy.
I’ve often wondered why….
Blimey.
Lots of probigpharma downtickers on here.
Hopefully we’re getting to the bastards.
Hear, hear.
Wonderful article by Dr. Alexander about Herbert Spencer’s unexpected vaccines discovery:
“…deaths-from-all-causes had dropped in number, while deaths-caused-by-specific-diseases had risen in number as a proportion of the population.”
And he came to the correct conclusion, more than a century ago. Let’s hope that “Spencer’s Principle” becomes more widely known.
Speaking of vaccines, here’s today’s example of Mad Cow Disease:
Watch: EU Commission President Pledges to ‘Vaccinate’ Population Against Wrongthink (infowars.com)
Tja paperclip was a sign of the resistance in Norway in WW2.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/unbelievable-paperclip-wwii-resistance-mark.html
Very interesting article. It makes me wonder how many other “enlightened” people from previous centuries have just been forgotten.
As far as I’m concerned, every day is now International Vaccine Scepticism Day.
Seconded
AZ vaccine failure. Dr David Cartland….
https://x.com/CartlandDavid/status/1795492020326215980
Thanks for the link
Maybe we should consider a national Operation Paperclip day.
Operation Paperclip was a secret United States intelligence program in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from the former Nazi Germany to the U.S. for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945–59. Some were former members and leaders of the Nazi Party.
Many of these criminals ended up running the UN.
This may focus peoples minds to the levels of corruption that governments will stoop to. Especially from the land of the free and the just.