What this means is that, should the federal government ever again decide that government workers need to get injected with pharmaceutical chemicals in order to stymie another "pandemic" or other such "health emergency," there will be no legal precedent in place to protect those who decide that the jabs are not for them.
In other words, because of the new SCOTUS ruling, the chances of ever again repealing a government-imposed jab mandate for public employees is nil or next to nil.
On December 11, SCOTUS decided to render "moot" the following three lower court rulings pertaining to public employee jab mandates:
Payne v. Biden, U.S., No. 22-1225
Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom, U.S., No. 23-60
Kendall v. Doster, U.S., No. 23-154
The same day that SCOTUS struck down all three of these cases as moot, Bloomberg Law reported that "the justices vacated decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth, Sixth and D.C. Circuits on whether federal employees can challenge the vaccine requirement in district court under the Civil Service Reform Act."
"The law set administrative procedures that employees must follow when challenging an adverse employment action, like a firing or suspension, and gave the Federal Circuit exclusive authority to hear appeals."
(Related: Did you know that getting jabbed for COVID is linked to psoriatic arthritis?)
Trump's packed SCOTUS agreed to issue "Munsingwear vacatur" discarding lower court legal challenges
None of this would have happened had the Biden regime, with the help of a lone federal employee plaintiff who lost one of the aforementioned cases at the Appellate level, not petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a "Munsingwear vacatur," which basically sponged the lower court rulings due to the cases being rendered moot.
"Vacatur," by the way, is a Latin phrase that means "to set aside a judgment," which is what SCOTUS ultimately did to the three cases.
"The justices undid the rulings under the so-called Munsingwear doctrine, in which the court vacates adverse rulings that the losing party no longer has the ability to challenge," Bloomberg further reported.
Ironically, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone SCOTUS justice who dissented in two of the cases. Justices John G. Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan; including all three of Donald Trump’s appointees, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, all ruled to throw out the cases.
Jackson is a Supreme Court appointee of "the big guy" himself who was placed there in 2022. Jackson infamously made headlines for refusing to define what a "woman" is, even though she was the lone dissenter on this particular issue in support of We the People's right to sue the government for trying to force us to take unwanted vaccine injections.
"In my view, the party seeking vacatur has not established equitable entitlement to that remedy," Justice Jackson wrote in dissent against throwing out the case of Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom.
"In my view, the party seeking vacatur has not established equitable entitlement to that remedy," Justice Jackson also wrote in dissent against throwing out the case of Secretary of the Air Force v. Doster.
"As a general matter, I believe that a party who claims equitable entitlement to vacatur must explain what harm – other than having to accept the law as the lower court stated it – flows from the inability to appeal the lower court decision."
What do you think will happen to everyone who got jabbed for COVID once the dust settles? Find out more at VaccineWars.com.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
