God bless Tucker Carlson for raising the big questions. Three days ago he asked: What is behind all this talk of mandatory participation in a medical experiment?
At this point Tucker brings up--in no way coincidentally--the notorious judicial patron saint of progressives, the patron saint for progressive governmental coercion of the citizenry, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The case he brings up, after an intro, is the notorious case of forced sterilizations. Yes, the Nazis did it--but we American Exceptionals did it before the Nazis did. It's worth reading the Wikipedia account of that case. Note well how the case was brought, what the reasoning was. It should remind you of other progressive initiatives. It should also remind you that progs never give up:
In 1927, Holmes wrote the 8–1 majority opinion in Buck v. Bell case that upheld the Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 and the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck who was claimed to be mentally defective. Later scholarship has shown that the suit was collusive, in that "two eugenics enthusiasts ... had chosen Buck as a bit player in a test case that they had devised," and "had asked Buck's guardian to challenge [the Virginia sterilization law]. In addition, Carrie Buck was probably of normal intelligence. The argument made on her behalf was principally that the statute requiring sterilization of institutionalized persons was unconstitutional, as a violation of what today is called "substantive due process." Holmes repeated familiar arguments that statutes would not be struck down if they appeared on their face to have a reasonable basis. In support of his argument that the interest of "public welfare" outweighs the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:
Sterilization rates under eugenics laws in the United States climbed from 1927 until Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Oklahoma statute that provided for the sterilization of "habitual criminals."
Buck v. Bell continues to be cited occasionally in support of due process requirements for state interventions in medical procedures. For instance, in 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Buck v. Bell to protect the constitutional rights of a woman coerced into sterilization without procedural due process. The court stated that error and abuse will result if the state does not follow the procedural requirements, established by Buck v. Bell, for performing an involuntary sterilization. Buck v. Bell was also cited briefly, though not discussed, in Roe v. Wade, in support of the proposition that the Court does not recognize an "unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases". However, although Buck v. Bell has not been overturned, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case out of existence."
Two brief quotes from previous posts to drive the point home:
It seems we live in a world gone mad, run by mad scientists, mad eugenicists, mad financiers, mad clerics, and mad politicians. I'm sure I've left a whole bunch of madmen out, but you get the idea.
“The eugenicists have got hold of the levers of power ..."
Onward with Tucker:
Any cursory survey of history should convince you that progressives have always been "in the business" for power. They want to tell other people what to do, and they want to be obeyed. Call it older sister syndrome. Or big brother syndrome. Writ large.
I'll take a stab at answering these questions.
It's about a self-designated "progressive" elite that believes it deserves to rule the proles, the deplorables. They believe they are so enlightened that they deserve to tell the rest of us what to do--and that the rest of us should be forced to knuckle under.
Their ideal is a society marching forward in lockstep into a progressive future--as they define it. Why the obvious vindictiveness against those who object to participating in an unnecessary medical experiment? It's simply to make an example of dissenters, to stamp out all dissent, all resistance. Resistance is reserved to the elite. It takes a village.