Solid Legal Basis For Biden Vaccination Rules Less Certain With Radicalized Supreme Court

Jamal Greene, Columbia Law School professor, talks with Rachel Maddow about the legal underpinnings of President Joe Biden's new vaccination rules and how the Supreme Court is likely to regard them. 
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: …
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#MSNBC #VaccineMandate #SupremeCourt


    1. ACB is fast becoming a fan fav! But I gotta give it to either Alito or Thomas. 👍 Def my 3 favorite American justices.

    2. On balance it is probably a good thing that SCOTUS is mainly Roman Catholic, but a few Muslim members is long overdue.

    3. Richard- Why are you so anxious to force Americans to take an experimental vaccine that’s actually gene therapy where the long term side effects are unknown to fight a virus that will give most people just a cough???

    4. @Chris A virus that had KILLED more people then all US wars except the civil war in less then two years. A virus that is rapidly mutating and can become worse if not caught and controlled NOW. A virus that leads to long term covid problems (long haulers) in the numbers of the 100’s of thousands ( 500,000+).
      Plus bud, they are not experimental. It is funny that idiots like you will push real experimental things like all the crap trump pushed and now also ivermectin ( completely unproven for covid treatment, and really why would a parasite medicine help with a virus. Those are completely different things. Like using the rules for baseball in a soccer match)
      Because the time is well approaching that trying to use the vaccine will not help. Once a vaccine resistant strain pops up, then all bets are off. People like you seem to think that nothing will ever happen to them, but the reality is that people like you are dying 1500 a day at the current rate.
      And as a side note, they have been studying the long term effects of this for years. They first started experimenting with mRNA over 30 years ago, plus there are other non-mRNA vaccines out there ( J&J for one that uses the more traditional method)
      SO Tell me, Why are YOU so anxious to see people die? Why are YOU so anxious to see people have medical problems for months and years? Why are YOU so hateful to your fellow humans that you are willing to let them die in droves? Answer those.

  1. The only nominal democracies where judicial appointments are exclusively decided by partisan election or by the political legislature are: Hungary, Poland, Mexico, Belarus, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Turkey, Pakistan, and the United States. Good company you keep!

    1. @Belly Dancer Em 105 people die every minute. Lockdowns have caused a spike in suicides,especially among young people.

    2. “In England we have had to set up new data collection because our coroner system is not quick enough for the close monitoring we need—the median time from death to inquest is 166 days. We now have “real time surveillance,” recording deaths by suicide as they happen, providing figures for a population of around 9 million, one sixth of the country. Here, too, we have found no increase in the months post-lockdown. The same appears to be true of self-harm.”

    1. @Noreb Studies are paid for by pharmaceutical companies, why would they pay for a study on the efficacy of a generic medication they can’t make any money on? Also, the fact that these studies are all funded by the makers of these products should tell you everything. Look up how much big pharma companies have been fined in the past for lying to and misleading people about the drugs they peddle. Remember the opioid crisis? Stop being a shill. These are soulless people who don’t care about your health, they care about their bottom line, and that’s it.

    2. @Fok Yu there are decades of research regarding the long term effects… these vaccines are not “new” your just idiots…

    3. @Positive Patriot it is you regurgitating the 39 bogus claims by right-wing nutjobs that have no experience in virology or immunology and post bogus data. By the way, the “trials” you are referring to was deemed fraudulent and where pulled even the manufacturers of ivermectin dispute you. The only drug that has been proven safe and effective by over 5 billion doses is the covid-19 vaccine and it is free. Monoclonal antibody treatment is effective but only can be administered after a person gets infected with covid-19

    4. @Noreb even if it where true that only 6,500 people died from the vaccine that would mean it would be an average of what .oooooooo2% death rate?

    1. @JM1993951, the vaccine was never tested on pregnant women. That’s why it is on the form when you get the vaccine. I suppose you could lie about it and put you child at risk…

    2. @Deborah Freedman, absolutely wrong. Doctors advise against pregnant women taking the vaccine because it was never tested on pregnant women. Why do you think they ask you if you are pregnant on the CDC form before you take the vaccine?

    3. @Super Scary Russian Bot

      I’m glad you brought up minorities andn women thank you

      Speaking of minorities in women before abortion they had another form of birth control let me so splain

      US Supreme Court decision Buck versus Bell was decided because of the legality of forced vaccination laws
      The most horrific decision the Supreme Court ever made was Buck versus Bell that decision gave the government the ability to mandate forced sterilization using a disease they just made up called feeble-mindedness that decision stands today California alone forcibly sterilized 20,000 people without their knowledge or consent

      This Supreme Court decision has Hitler rights in his book mein Kampf he was no longer thinking and toying with the idea with eradicating the Jews The Americans were using it to eradicate black and poor people and those they just didn’t consider Worthy because at that time the employers we’re making people work 7 days a week with even child employment and the rich the wealthy and the upper class had enough of having to feed the hungry also the race separation in schools along with people not being allowed to marry black people was another American law Hitler wrote about in mein Kampf

      The second time the Nazis quoted US Supreme Court law Buck versus Bell was when they enacted the Nazi race courts

      The third time the Nazis quoted US Supreme Court Buck versus Bell was in Nuremberg Germany

      California still has billions of dollars set aside to pay the survivors of Buck versus Bell but as you can imagine once the government chops down your entire family tree there’s not many survivors left but they are paying out

      It’s a vaccine years from now was proven to have sterilized people there’s no legal way for the survivors too Susan federal government because right now it’s still law that’s on the books


    1. Every time there’s a terrorist attack Americans don’t blame the people responsible they blame each other instead.

    2. @unter mench everyone who’s ever been through a wildfire knows how rapidly and severity it can spread. With just the right conditions, it dosent matter, a fire is born. And this fire has plenty of fuel to burn up. Nobody is safe from it

  2. Scotus has been turned into a organized partisan executioners where these judges take precedent and rewrite new precedents to conform to their own parties wishes.

  3. radicalized? Seems an exagerration. Different balancing of one right vs another yes per their ideology but radicalized.

    1. @Locke42485 Isn’t the ‘Originalist’ theory of interpreting the Constitution at the heart of this idea that the SCOTUS is unbalanced by a majority of ‘originalist / textualist ‘ justices put forward by the ‘Federalist Society’ ?

    2. “The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, are associated with this view.”

    3. @smkh yes but it is hardly radical. I disagree with its methods but again, it is a “thing” that has been around for a long time . All we are seeing now if a shift towrd it –versus past century where it was a shift away from it. Kinda like a pendulum

    1. The creation of law is the exclusive purview of the Legislative branch NO president can create law. (Civics 101). Executive Orders are not binding on the legislature. Only a law passed by both chambers of congress (House and senate) is binding.

    1. But don’t you care at all about how your choice might effect the lives of other people? Wouldn’t you like to know that your choice is helping to save lives and not contributing to unnecessary deaths?

  4. Bad when following the constitution is deemed “radical”.
    It literally says powers not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the state or the people.
    I don’t think a vaccine mandate is listed anywhere in the constitution….. therefore it goes to the state or to me……

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.