I agree that state governments can pass those types of laws just like they can pass an individual mandate the way Romney did. Something in the Constitution about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Unless the Supreme Court pulls some sort of right to privacy out of their rears the way they did with Roe v. Wade.
From the general internet:
"What does the 14th Amendment say about privacy?
Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc."
It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court we have now would find a right to privacy, my body my choice, applicable to refusal to get a vaccine which would be extra interesting if they did it at the same time as they overturned Roe v. Wade, especially if the usual suspects switched their positions with the liberals saying there is no right to control your own body when it comes to vaccinations but the conservatives say yes there is, the exact opposite of their positions on abortion.
Just as an aside, it would seem like if Obamacare and the mandate is Constitutional then forcing people to get vaccinated is also Constitutional. All you do is pass the law like they did with Obamacare and have it say that you must buy a vaccination which can be subsidized 100% on a means tested basis and if you don't then you get fined $5000, or taxed $5000 by the IRS; same difference, whatever way floats Roberts' boat. That was always the danger of the mandate, that the government can now make you do anything they want you to just by making you pay for it and then tax-fining you if you refuse.
This might go better in the Coronavirus thread, but anyway...
I did see another story in yahoo news decrying how many Supreme Court decisions lately have been going against voter rights.
This wasn't the story I saw but it brings us back to the election results. This story was from a while back now so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/scotus-mail-voting-ruling-raises-161525205.html"Tonight four conservative Supreme Court justices indicated their support for a radical, anti-democratic theory that would stop state Supreme Courts from enforcing state election laws to protect the franchise," Slate's Mark Joseph Stern wrote. "And Barrett could soon give them a fifth vote . . . The 2020 election may be in her hands."
Though the court allowed the state order to stand, "that victory may only last a matter of days," Vox's Ian Millhiser reported. "Indeed, the GOP may be able to raise this issue again after Barrett is confirmed, potentially securing a court order requiring states like Pennsylvania to toss out an unknown number of ballots that arrive after Election Day. If the election is close, that could be enough to change the result."
As always, one thing to watch on rulings is who is ruling which way, even in the lower courts. Is it just one judge? Or is it more than one but they are unanimous? Or are there split decisions? If it's only one judge or the decisions are split that doesn't really tell us much until the case gets to the highest court it's going to get to.
