The widespread use of covid lockdowns has been dubbed “the greatest invasion of civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country” by a Supreme Court justice.
Justice Neil Gorsuch provided a damning analysis of the restrictions imposed by state and federal executive officials.
During the pandemic, emergency orders were issued “on a breathtaking scale,” according to a declaration written by Gorsuch as part of a Supreme Court case involving Title 42 and involving the Supreme Court.
‘Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private,’ he wrote.
‘They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.’
‘Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed,’ Gorsuch added.
Congress and state legislatures ‘too often stayed mute’ as emergency decrees were issued ‘at a frenetic speed’.
The declaration was made at the same time the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge brought by Republican states to uphold the Title 42 public health regulation that allowed the United States to reject asylum seekers during the outbreak.
Congress and state legislatures “frequently remained silent” as emergency orders were issued “with a frenetic pace.”
The announcement coincided with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Republican states to uphold the Title 42 public health regulation that permitted the United States to deny asylum during the outbreak.
‘One lesson might be this: Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat.
‘A leader or an expert who claims he can fix everything, if only we do exactly as he says, can prove an irresistible force.’
He concluded: ‘Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others.
‘And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.’
Numerous studies have cast doubt on the efficacy of lockdowns both domestically and internationally, demonstrating that in some cases, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.
According to a study by an international team of economists, draconian shutdowns had a 3% impact on Covid mortality in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Europe in 2020.
This translates to 6,000 fewer fatalities in Europe and 4,000 fewer deaths in the United States, according to specialists from Johns Hopkins University in the United States, Lund University in Sweden, and the Center for Political Studies in Denmark.
However, according to official US data, Covid cannot be blamed for the over 300,000 additional deaths that occurred in the United States during the pandemic’s duration of more than two years.
Dr. Coady Wing, an expert in health policy from Indiana University, told DailyMail.com that these pandemic restrictions kept those who needed care the most away from clinics, possibly resulting in thousands of avoidable fatalities.