supreme court

Today, the incompetent vaccine, tomorrow force people to eat only fruits and vegetables, followed by mandatory abstinence. F**k em

I think he'll be fine to just treat them as the public health ordinances that they are.

Where does the power of the state end?

As far as this is concerned: Who cares? The point here is that it doesn't end before public health ordinances. And the Constitution provides for that many times. Washington himself saw the hard way what happens when you let people pick and choose how seriously they take their responsibilities with epidemics and inoculations.

"For public health" is a dangerous line.
Was china right for executing, or preventing, 250 million people "for public health"? (The one child policy to prevent an overpopulation crash)

Ignoring public health is the dangerous line. That's what makes it public health in the first place. That's the point.

How far would you go for public health? Ban cigarettes? Ban alcohol? Ban fatty foods? Ban sugar? Exercise mandates? Execution of the fat? Execution of the sick?

Masks and vaccinations will do. None of the rest are needed. This pandemic would have been over with a year ago if you'd all done what you were supposed to.

The plandemic would have been over a year ago if they'd have promoted HCQ and Ivermectin and other treatments instead of the covid mRNA shots.

Why do so many people who wear masks and get the vaccine also get covid? (I'll give you a hint, there is no government powerful enough to stop a pandemic, and a government that powerful would not be desireable)

Ok, you want to abandon that whole line of argument and go back to talking about transmission rates instead? Because I'll happily repeat the reasons why you're just as wrong about that too, but let's be clear that you've given up on arguing about government overreach for pandemic protocols that you do not want to do.

Any freedom loving person should care. The left has worn out the phrase my body my choice but suddenly the state gets to make the call. I guess they see it differently if it's their side tightening the grasp

As far as this is concerned, no, they shouldn't. It's a public health ordinance and the Constitution is square with public health mandates in several places. Justice Roberts knows that.

Can you source these claims. The only thing I see is "to promote the public good." which doesn't include mandating anything.

Completely illegal since the Federal government has no purview over public health, beyond promoting it.