Thread by @KurtSchlichter

Here is Tom’s play so you nonlawyers understand it. He attempts to establish a basic principle, that vaccines in some circumstance can be made mandatory. But he doesn’t go through with the next part of the analysis, which are the facts specific to this particular situation. 1/

https://twitter.com/tomzoellner/status/1421946892846436355

In fact, in the very rare instances when rights are implicated, the key is the analysis of the specific cracks. In this situation, we have a not very deadly virus, vaccines that aren’t perfect and variety of other factors. 2/

Typically, courts being asked to implicate a fundamental right, like not to have something injected into your body against your will, require the state to prove that its plan is the least restrictive alternative. 3/

In other words, the state Hass to show not only a compelling interest, and I mean really compelling, but that its plan is the only possible way to achieve the necessary results. 4/

But @tomzoellner does not even try to do that. He attempts to establish a basic principle, you never actually applies it. He just assumes it applies. This is very common when liberals challenge fundamental rights. 5/

For instance, when they talk about your right to keep and bear arms, they will point to the bizarre in on situations where someone might not be allowed to keep and bear arms, and then assume that it applies in every situation. 6/

The giveaway to look for is when the focus is entirely on the exception to the right, rather than the basic principle embodied by the right. They never wanna talk about that. The default is the right. It’s only in the rarest the circumstances that the right can be overcome. 7/

The fact is that the left considers rights an intolerable obstacles to getting what it wants done. And of course, that is the whole point of rights. Rights limit what they can do. That’s why the only talk about exceptions to the right. 8/

Also, be alert for them applying balancing tests. They usually phrase it as rights come with responsibilities. No they don’t. That’s why they’re rights. Rights are never balanced. Policies are balanced. The point of rights is that they are established. /9

It’s sad so many people are so willing to give up the freedoms people died for in order to exercise power over other citizens. Your duty is to never allow it, to fight back & to refuse to accept the premise that your rights are an inconvenience. Your rights are the point. 10/