This involves the US constitution, but still should be of interest to Australian critics of the idea of compulsory vaccination. The debate is between vax critic Robert F. Kennedy and pro-vaxxer Alan Dershowitz. They argue about whether the US supreme court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), would legally justify compulsory vaccination. The short of the long is that in terms of jurisprudence, the case does not show this, but would be limited to the facts of the time. Kennedy argues that the situation today is very different from that case which involved avoiding a fine, and where the fine was paid without a vax. Still, as pointed out by Dr Mercola, if the issue of compulsory vaccination came before the vaccinated SCOTUS, they are almost certainly going to side with the establishment narrative, contrary to the false news circulating that SCOTUS has upheld medical freedom; it has not. There is no indication that this court will do that. And I think the same considerations apply to the High Court of Australia. It never ceases to amaze me how freedom types have such a starry-eyed view of the courts, when judges are largely Left-wing lawyers trained in woke law schools. I guess it is a convenient myth to move onto the next thing; the courts will save us.