Thread by @DarnelSugarfoo

🧵THREAD: I swear to God and sonny Jesus, if I have to explain to another Pro Vaxxx lunatic why using a 116 year old Supreme Court decision saying you can mandate vaxxxes is a dumbass idea, I'm gonna scream.

Get this through your heads, you clueless twots:

1/16

The case you're referring to, "Jacobson v Massachusetts," also established forced sterilization of women as settled law.

There's a reason "Jacobson" hasn't been invoked in 70+ years.

2/16

The SCOTUS decision below enables both mandates AND "cutting fallopian tubes," based on Jacobson.

This is the legal foundation you're basing your "Mandate Fantasy" on: --

3/16

That's the legal theory you're hanging your fedora on, you dopey twots;

Both cases are have never been overturned.

It was after the war crimes of WWII that eugenics (that involved forced injections by the Germans) fell out of vogue with the American people. (obviously)

4/16

But if Jacobson is Constitutional, then Texas could (in theory) require women trying to put a child on welfare to submit proof of a tubal ligation.

They would not be *forcing* the procedure, just denying services based on the failure to do so.

Sound familiar?

5/16

Again, both cases have never been overturned, so both are subject to stare decisis.

You can't get to mandates without allowing red states to cut off welfare to mothers who refuse to get "fixed."

6/16

What I really don't understand is why you "progressives" would want to base the rules of our 2021 society on court rulings made before women could vote, child labor was still legal, & the KKK would regularly march on Washington DC.

It's 2021! THE CURRENT YEAR!

Remember?

7/16

But, since we're basing our current policy on 100+ year old Supreme Court decisions, let's see what else we can dredge from that time, shall we?

8/16

How about "Ozawa v. United States" (1922)

A Japanese immigrant, Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. citizen, despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to whites and Black people.

9/16

Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the law (the court was so racist, it would've failed) he simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were white. The Court rejected this logic.

You want to follow that precedent too? No citizenship for Asians?

10/16

How about "Lum v. Rice" (1927)

A 9 year old Chinese girl named Martha Lum from Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school was STILL required to attend school.

But there was NO school.

11/16

Lum's family sued to allow her to attend a local white school, but the Supreme Court said NO.

The Supreme Court basically said: "The State of Mississippi can penalize you for NOT going to school, even though they're not allowing you to go to school because you're Asian."

12/16

How about "Hirabayashi v. United States" (1943)

Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order interning Japanese-Americans before the Supreme Court — and lost. Just because.

13/16

Or, how about we go back a mere 6 years before your precious 1905 Vaxxxx mandate ruling?

"Cumming v. Richmond" (1899)

When three Black families in Richmond County, Virginia faced the closing of the area's only public Black high school.....

14/16

...they petitioned the Court to allow their children to finish their education at the white high school instead.

It only took the Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard....

15/16

....by establishing that if there was no suitable Black school in a given district, Black students would simply have to do without an education.

So sure, let's start digging up old SCOTUS decisions, shall we?

STOP. BEING. SO. DUMB.

You intergalactic douchebags.

16/16 - END