'Full Adjudication': Dershowitz Talks 'Ideological Political Exemption' From Vax Mandate

AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

There should be “full adjudication” by the United States Supreme Court before anyone makes a final decision on whether to enforce COVID-19 vaccination mandates — including whether religious and/or ideological political exemptions are valid reasons for refusing to be vaccinated. So says Harvard constitutional law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. Joe Biden was unavailable for comment.


During an appearance on Newsmax TV’s “Saturday Report,” the famed attorney talked about potential exemptions from the vaccine, including a relevant court ruling on Friday.

“The Second Circuit just [Friday] in New York ruled that a religious exemption was not required by the Constitution [and] that’s being appealed to the Supreme Court. The question I put to most religious leaders is this: ‘On what basis is there a religious exemption?”

Dershowitz stressed that Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim religions and religious organizations don’t oppose vaccinations “unless it’s individuals interpreting religion” and refusing to be vaccinated based on their respective faith(s). Dershowitz then brought up an interesting parallel — an ideological political exemption.

“The Supreme Court has held, but if there’s a religious exemption, there has to also be an ideological political exemption.”

Incidentally, California’s first in the nation COVID-19 vaccination mandate for kids ages 12 and over allows students and staff to opt out for religious or ideological reasons — but don’t celebrate too soon, Californians opposed to the vax based on personal beliefs: a key (Democrat, of course) lawmaker says he may push legislation to eliminate the personal belief exemption.


That said, Dershowitz believes SCOTUS will likely uphold religious and ideological political exemptions as a valid reason for refusing to be vaccinated.

Dershowitz told Newsmax he doesn’t support vaccinations as a first defense against the virus but is  “in favor of it being the absolute last resort, if necessary.”

He then pointed to several different scenarios where, in his considered opinion, mandates should be allowed and where they should not. First up, the U.S. military and the requirement that service members receive shots to protect against malaria or other diseases.

“[If] you’re in the military, you don’t have the same rights as ordinary civilians do, but you have rights. I do agree that these things would be adjudicated before anybody makes any final decisions about either injecting somebody or firing something. It has to go through the courts first.”

Dershowitz again turned to the issue of COVID and the Supreme Court, saying “the court is going to have to decide a new issue, and that concerns a disease that can be fatal but oftentimes isn’t,” also pointing out that COVID is a communicable disease vs. diseases that are not. (Emphasis, mine.)

“Everybody has to make their own decision, but remember, too, this not only involves you and me, it [also] involves people we come in contact with.

If this was a vaccination to prevent cancer or heart disease, we would be perfectly [within our] right not to take it, but if it’s communicable, if it’s transmittable, then you have to balance the rights of other people against your individual right – and the courts will make that decision.”


Dershowitz believes the courts will decide “vaccinations can be” mandatory in “extreme cases.” Is he right?

Dershowitz also appeared on Newsmax TV in August to discuss vaccine mandates. “The president doesn’t have the authority to do this,” he said, “only Congress has the authority to do this.” Again, I’m no constitutional lawyer but Congress or no Congress, the Constitution, and/or the Supreme Court reign supreme in the vaccine mandate battle.

Meanwhile, as we reported Friday, a year-long study found that people inoculated against COVID-19 are just as likely to spread the delta variant of the virus to contacts in their household as those who haven’t had been vaccinated.

“Vaccination alone is not enough to prevent people from being infected with the delta variant and spreading it in household settings,” said Ajit Lalvani, a professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London who co-led the study.

Paging Dr. Fauci… paging Dr. Fauci… Dr. Fauci?


As we reported Saturday, even HBO’s liberal “Real Time” host Bill Maher on Friday declared: “It’s time to admit the pandemic is over.”

“Just resume living. I know some people seem to not want to give up on the wonderful pandemic, but you know what? It’s over. There’s always going to be a variant. […]

“We have to get back to life. “[L]ook at the sporting events that are … all three sports are playing now including basketball, which is inside. Nobody seems to be having super-spreader events.

“I know it was great. It was so much fun having a pandemic but, you know, buh-bye.”

Maher hit the nail on the liberal head: “I know it was great. It was so much fun having a pandemic.”

While Maher turned it into a joke, in the eyes of the Democrat Party and its sock-puppet media, that’s exactly how they have viewed the coronavirus from the outset. They have intentionally hyped the ever-loving crap out of it, purely for the purpose of political expediency.

Never mind untold numbers of closed businesses, financial and personal issues for millions of Americans, and worst of all, the damage done to America’s school kids due to schools remaining closed for months by powerful teachers’ unions that have used COVID as a golden opportunity to continue to make ridiculous demands before agreeing to send teachers back to their classrooms, many times adding to their demands after wresting their initial demands from already-stretched cities and school districts.


Meanwhile, the vaccine mandate band plays on. As professor Dershowitz suggested, see you in court?


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos