Martin Armstrong, proprietor of the website Armstrong Economics, whose articles make frequent appearances on Lew Rockwell.com has posted a pair of articles (here and here) in which he makes the case that discrimination against those who have refused vaccines is illegal under current state and federal law and that any business or state or federal institution that imposes discriminatory behavior upon unvaccinated individuals is violating the law and should face legal repercussions in the form of lawsuits. While I have no doubt that Marty is technically correct in his assertions, we are well past the point now where anyone should continue to believe that the nation’s courts, state or federal, are in the business of upholding the law. How is it that people have still learned nothing from the election-related debacles in multiple state and federal courts, to include the United States Supreme Court, over the last six months?
It is infuriating to read and hear otherwise highly intelligent and informed people continue to blather about lawfare and taking the battle for liberty and justice to the courts when the courts have demonstrated, conclusively and in the most in-your-face flagrant manner possible, that they are first and foremost in the business of sustaining and augmenting the Reigning Establishment’s power, not constraining it or holding it accountable to the rule of law that We The Deplorables are compelled under threat of lethal force to obey. Yes, on rare occasions the courts will render decisions in favor of both liberty and the rule of law, but these are rare exceptions rather than the rule, insignificant sops thrown to public in order to maintain the facade that the judiciary is actually dedicated to truth, justice, and the American way. The few decisions that courts render that actually do favor Us The Deplorables are almost always decisions that have but a minor impact, if any, on the power of the Establishment to wreak havoc on our lives, liberty, and property. No case in which a decision favorable to the people would hinder the Almight State’s power to do as it pleases will EVER come down from any lower court in a manner that will survive appeal. Higher courts are mostly in the business of rubber-stamping decisions favorable to the State and finding legal subterfuges by which to shred any decision impeding the State’s repacity. As transparently obvious and pathetic as this whole strategy is, it appears to have in no way seriously impacted the high school civics class view of the sheeple majority that the judiciary is indeed the blind “Lady Justice” of the State’s propaganda. Only when they individually fall prey to the judiciary’s rapacity does a four-watt bulb finally illuminate and they begin to question the veracity of their lifelong programming. Unfortunately, by this time it is both too late for them and not enough to provoke others to action to prevent recurrences of similar injustice (“hey, it ain’t me they’re after. Sucks to be the guy they ARE after”).
In the Rutgers University case that Armstrong cites as justification for a lawsuit against the Garbage State, and Rutgers specifically, he should be intelligent and informed enough to know that suing a state institution like Rutgers, New Jersey’s principal state university, is not a walk in the park, no matter how obvious standing would appear to be. Even getting the state courts to grant certiorari for a lawsuit against the state itself will be a multi-year process, and there is every probability that the courts will wind up throwing out the suit even if they agree to initially hear it. They won’t give any legally sound reason for the dismissal, either, but they don’t have to. When the State controls the only venue for redress against itself, it’s not inclined to play by rules because, again, it doesn’t have to (those who worship the “wisdom and perspicacity” of the nation’s founders would do well to ask themselves how such people could possibly have thought it a good idea to make the State the arbiter of its own scope of power and authority). Given the behavior of government at all levels in recent years, and especially over the last calendar year, anyone who would bet on the State issuing a decision that basically says “y’know, you guys were right. We were bad, BAD boys and shouldn’a done what we did. Here’s your money back, we’re repealing the COVID laws, and we’re sending ourselves to bed without supper tonight” is probably either developmentally challenged or has been overdosing on Delusionol.
So, no, Marty, I don’t think that your plan has any practical merit, unless you plan on waiting until the current rotten system collapses under the weight of its own dysfunction and inertia and a system of REAL legal arbitration arises from the smouldering ruins of the current travesty. Otherwise, all you’re doing is setting up some idealistic young minds for a very painful enema of real world truth. Come to think of it, that’s probably not a bad idea. Maybe that will get the Revolution rolling sooner.
.svg){kind=link}