SB 277 Lawsuit – The “Do Not Cross” Line
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Aug 18, 2016
http://bolenreport.com/sb-277-lawsuit-not-cross-line/

[snip]

This case is NOT about vaccines – although those ultra-dangerous Made-in-China-death-pus-tubes are the problem the case seems to revolve around.

Some background…

The real point of the case is simple – what are the limits that the State can do claiming “The Greater Good?” If today they can force dangerous vaccines into our children, tomorrow they can drag our nine-year-olds into sexual slavery, or grind them up into food for cattle for that same claim of “The Greater Good.”

I’m not joking.

It gets really scary when you think that a grinning psychopath/sociopath(?) like California Senator Dicky Pan gets to decide what, exactly, defines “The Greater Good” and who it applies to.

What the Plaintiff’s attorneys are saying to the Court is simple “Where’s the line Judge?” Legal precedent says that the State, under a Strict Scrutiny review, must follow specific rules to make laws. Our side is saying that the State of California did not follow the rules with this law.

Before these issues can be argued in court they have to be broken down into legal components. And, that’s where our attorneys are taking the case.
Where we are going…

To the US Supreme Court..

To get where the Plaintiff is going in the argument presented both generally in the SB 277 case, and specifically in the Preliminary Injunction Hearing, we need to have a clear understanding of two legal concepts: “Status Quo Ante” and “Strict Scrutiny, ” and one doctrine called “Hybrid Rights.”

In short, the two concepts, used together say “Your honor we need to stay right where we were before SB 277 (status quo ante) while we carefully scrutinize SB 277’s Constitutionality using the Strict Scrutiny guidelines.…”

What is “status quo ante?” It is a legal term defined as “the previously existing state of affairs.”

What is “Strict Scrutiny?” Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.

What are “hybrid rights“ – A hybrid rights claim involves a challenge that the government is simultaneously violating one’s right to the free exercise of religion and some other “constitutional protection[].” The strength of this other constitutional protection, known as the companion claim, determines whether a hybrid rights claim will be successful.

The Plaintiffs are basically saying “Throw this crappy SB 277 law out the window Judge. It just plain sucks… “