Justice Sotomayor Exaggerated the Number of Severe COVID-19 Cases Among Children
"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators," said the justice, wrongly.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Friday on whether to prevent the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for private workplaces from going into effect. As expected, the right-leaning justices seemed skeptical that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had the authority to craft such a regulation without new input from Congress, whereas the three liberal justices appeared to believe the mandate was necessary given the public health emergency posed by COVID-19.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor was particularly adamant that the surging omicron variant wave represents a real crisis. In discussing the issue, she significantly exaggerated the threat of COVID-19 to children.
"Omicron is as deadly as delta and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did," she said. "The numbers—look at the hospitalization rates going up. We have more infected people today than we did a year ago in January. We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators."
If by serious condition, Sotomayor meant hospitalized, then her claim is false. There are not 100,000 children currently hospitalized with COVID-19. In fact, if you tallied up all the children admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 since August 2020, you would still not find 100,000 of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hospitals have admitted about 82,000 COVID-19 patients under the age of 18 in that time period. The current seven-day average for this age group is 766 hospitalizations.
The overwhelming majority of children who contract COVID-19 experience only mild disease. The disease's age skew is so great that even unvaccinated young people are at less risk than elderly people who are vaccinated. Most kids admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 have underlying health conditions—particularly obesity.
Sotomayor's behavior suggests she is perhaps the most COVID-cautious judge. She is the only one of the nine who always wears her mask inside the courtroom, and she opted to participate in today's oral arguments virtually, from her private chambers.
That's her prerogative, of course. But if she is trying to justify President Joe Biden's far-reaching and unprecedented vaccine mandate on the grounds that the disease is uniquely dangerous to children, then she should demonstrate a more accurate recitation of the statistics.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The numbers—look at the hospitalization rates going up. We have more infected people today than we did a year ago in January. We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators."
To quote Luke Skywalker, "Everything you just said is a lie".
I just came down to the comments to say "You mean she lied", but it looks like everyone else did too.
Odd, a Judge is bringing " evidence" in a Hearing shes presiding over?
And false evidence at that?
I thought she always operated this way, she states what she wants to believe to support the decision she has made before the facts are presented.
Also recall last month,(?) Biden went to the Court and " asked" them to do things his way..
Give the wise Latinx a break. her/she is waiting for the cargx ships to unload the latest copies of the communist manifestx.
Your comment would be sad if it were not 100% true.
Start working at home with G00gle! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.
I work thr0ugh this link, G0 to tech tab for work detail.………_>>>>>> CLICK NOW
Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12920 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,..........
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
Man,I really hope that's not true,that doesnt support separation of powers
Shrs telegraphing to the Media so they can pre spin the story.
That way they're all lock step with the pre arranged outcome.
"Together!"
This isnt law, its Social Justice.
She does seem to, yes. This, and interrupting the other justices, the men, anyhow.
An Iron - Clad comment.
I see we nade the top of Drudges page.
Who is "we", you and your fellow travelers?
everyone but you.
Thats a reverse to your outgrouping attempt.
The cool part of this is that she's not under oath, so, unlike the advocate, she can't face sanctions for offering up blatantly false information. There's nothing requiring justices have even slightly accurate talking points and advocates are discouraged from contradicting any factual claims they make because they're focused on the legal arguments.
Her elevator does go to the top but when the door opens the place is empty.
Also,her lights are on,but nobody home!
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ... Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ HAs ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ... Mᴀᴋᴇ $90 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $12000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ time... Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ,go to tech tab for work detail,.........Visit Here
A judge *can* bring in certain evidence on their own, but it has to be more or less indisputable, which this wasn't.
Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence:
She didnt introduce fact.
It was Opinion.
I see she has been consuming the news.
MSNBC or CNN?
speaking of consuming the news, the same day as this post, Time published a report citing the 766 number for children and teens as a daily admission rate. From Soave's wording I took that to be weekly although perhaps he meant 7-day average of daily admissions.
There is no time series so it's also not clear how much of a spike that is, how it compares to adult hospitalization rates, whether the comorbidity trend continues, etc. But I agee, I don't see how you ever get 100,000 kids in the hospital, even at that rate or one increased within rational understanding of trends (since hospitalizations lag case numbers).
Sadly...She was not lying...She actually believed what she was saying....because she isn't very smart....The reality that we as Americans must face, is that we have a system in this country that puts stupid people into great positions of power...and this should horrify any sane and educated person.
@Tqnorris65 : George Costanza, "it's not a lie if you believe it.."
The "wise Latina" doesn't appear to have lost any weight which is her biggest risk factor with the disease. Keep staying home and wearing the stupid mask.
You mean lied. She lied about the numbers.
Conservative: "X is up 10%"
Reason: "Conservative LIED! X is up 8%"
Leftist: "Y is up 175%!"
Reason: "Leftist exaggerated, Y is up 8%"
Pretty much. Another example:
Conservative: "The Dems are doing something wrong..."
Reason: "There goes the GOP pouncing again!"
Leftist: "The GOP is evil."
Reason: "Here is why the Dems are right..."
Lol
Gringx Reason staff carry water for Latinx.
If you have a //reason// for believing this, why post a hypo? Why not a real example?
Because fuck you, leftist bitch
I guess every time Reason claimed Trump lied they really should have said he exaggerated... which in his case is closer to reality with most things he talks about. The Lie counter the dems used on Trump were mostly for obvious opinions and exaggerations ... but they served the purpose.
i can't be sure she lied...I mean she stated something false,.buy I have so many perfectly art good friends that just have no real grasp on how small the Covid threat is to children. They are so scared they are actually made stupid. They can't believe the data since it doesn't match their emotions.. We are emotional beings, so instead of changing their minds, they just doubt or deny or ignore the facts.
I never fully understood the FDR quote, " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" until this pandemic hit.
Did she say something untrue?
That would be a lie.
How to impeach a mentally ill justice?
SCOTUS judges can be impeached under the Constitution. Samuel Chase was impeached and acquitted in the early 1800s.
Same way you impeach a mentally ill president.
With the small difference that a giggling whore won't automatically be the replacement.
( golf clap )
How do we impeach a President running a criminal operation?
Via A Congress that isnt complicit.
Sadly we dont have one.
See Steve Bannon.
This doesn't bode well for the Rebel Alliance. The Empire meanwhile, loves it!
The democrats just wish they really did have a pile of dead kids to lord over Americans as an excuse to get rid of the constitution.
"... pile of dead kids ..."
Er, no.
" Choices"
"I've got a bad feeling about this"
"Exaggerated" is a bit of an exaggeration.
Exaggeration or understatement?
Ummm Robby, the entire statement you quoted from that lying cunt was all lies! she is not 'over cautious' she is a liar period. Goddamn man
To be fair, she could just be profoundly ignorant.
I'd vote the latter on this one. I'm guessing she watches Rachel Maddow and CNN.
I can believe that. Too lazy and stupid to look things up on her own. So she cribs from Maddow.
Has her clerks watch for her, and give her the Cliff's Notes versions.
The Children's Nookie Network?
Or, both. The power of 'and.'
I would say not overplaying his hand is better from Soave's position. Saying she "exaggerated" to such an extreme case is enough because the falsehood speaks for itself. You don't need to be told she's a liar because you can see it.
I would reference the parable of the dinner party. If you sit at the foot and are brought forward to a higher position you feel honored. If you sit at the head and are shifted down, you feel dishonor, even if you end up in the same spot. It's better to understate things and then have people outraged at the conduct rather than overstate them and have people outraged at you being overdramatic.
How about "Sotomayor is blatantly wrong on the facts she's presenting." No accusation that she's consciously lying by claiming she's aware of facts and misrepresenting them, but she's making factual claims that are nowhere near the neighborhood of truth and reality.
From what I heard of her arguments this morning, she has no interest in the Constitutionality of the mandate.
Who cares about Constitutionality? Statutorily it's horseshit. Just assume Congress was within its prerogatives in enacting OSHA; what in OSHA authorizes this?
Nothing. Bitemes trying to make law...
She (and other judges) seemed to be deciding if it was a good idea and if there was precedent for an agency to implement such a mandate. What the hell diff does THAT make? IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
Instead of it being the first thing the justices look at, whether it is Constitutional seems to be the last, if it is considered at all.
She has no inherent interest in constitutionality, unless it serves The Narrative.
Sotomayor's behavior suggests she is
perhaps the most COVID-cautious judgea partisan hack.FTFY
I don't think this is partisanship... so much as the profound ignorance the drives so much covid policy. It's my opinion that people who think masks work, lockdowns work, the the failure of the vaccine is on the shoulders of the vaccinated etc., really believe what they're saying.
Except Fauci. He knows the bullshit he spews is a lie.
Everything since "don't hoard masks, they don't work for this purpose anyway".
Then somebody pointed out that masks were a visible sign that people were scared and ripe for accepting forcible compliance. Since then it has been 98% narrative.
"the profound ignorance the drives so much covid policy. It's my opinion that people who think masks work, lockdowns work, the the failure of the vaccine is on the shoulders of the vaccinated etc., really believe what they're saying."
Yea, that's part of the partisanship
It's a grift. 'Public health expert' is all meetings and speaking and no actual work. Why would they ever question what they are being very well paid to say? Throw in 'our job is to serve the greater good' and those fuckers are overcome with conviction like it was the Holy Ghost.
Talk about perverse incentives. The worse the pandemic gets the more the left worship the Fauci. They never seem to give a shit that his job was to guide us through it, not force us to circle back again and again.
"But if she is trying to justify President Joe Biden's far-reaching and unprecedented vaccine mandate on the grounds that the disease is uniquely dangerous to children, then she should demonstrate a more accurate recitation of the statistics."
But if she demonstrated a more accurate recitation of the statistics, then she wouldn't be able to justify President Joe Biden's far-reaching and unprecedented vaccine mandate.
And how OSHA has anything to do with risk to children.
Wait, what?
Child labor is illegal?
I won't put my faith in the government to save me from the government. It doesn't really matter what the supreme court "rules", but it will be easier for everyone if they just leave me alone.
Word
This is why I will never vote Democrat in a presidential election. All of their justices are awful.
The constitution, law, or anything else does not matter to these hacks at all. All they care about is power.
I recall the media dunking on Bush for nominating Harriet Miers because "She's never been a judge, hurr hurr hurr!"
Then Obama went and nominated Kagan, and suddenly that wasn't an issue any more.
"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators."
Are there children in the workplace? Mostly, no. Even if true, this would be irrelevant.
..theyre on ventilators IN the workplace!
Gotta spin it for all its worth..
On ventilators while in sweatshops making ventilators!
" its a sweatshop ...youre
..not sweating enough!"
Andy Dick in Hebrew Hammer
I thought maybe she was supporting the return of child labor.
And Robby,is it that hard to say she is a liar and all she does is spread lies?
Jesus Christ she is a lying Marxist racist scum bag and your take is that she exaggerated things?
This is becoming Robbie's MO. He tries to be factually accurate, but he gives the most generous possible interpretation of misinformation coming from the left, and extremely harsh interpretation of misinformation coming from the right.
Which plays into the predominating political narrative, of course: That people on the political left are compassionate even if occasionally misguided, while people on the right are callously evil and manipulative. It's just disappointing that even when Robbie pushes back against bad media narratives-which he does frequently-he concedes half the argument by accepting disingenuous framing.
You can just say Sotomayor is wrong. Blatantly wrong. That her information doesn't share a common border with reality. You can do that without saying she's a liar, but it's a stronger statement than saying she exaggerated. This information isn't something you can possibly reach by exaggerating.
Except she's a lying progshit, so don't water that down.
Exaggerated
Did Webster change another definition?
Emmanuel Lewis has been busy lately.
What's the difference? Children have nothing to do with occupational health.
"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators," said the justice, wrongly.
Hmm. I considered Sotomayor my favorite SC justice now that RBG is no longer with us.
But that's just an incomprehensible mistake on her part. That many suffering children would mean Biden has totally failed on his promise to shut down the virus.
#DefendBidenAtAllCosts
The Wise Latina is innumerate.
#WiseLatinaCantAddShit
Math still is racist.
The "we have over 100,000 children" part reminded me of Oprah getting trolled by a fake pedophile group.
That is one of the classic episodes in trolling, by which all trolling is measured, The asshats who show up here are tiny-minded nothings in comparison to the god who got the fat idiot billionaire to blubber on about over 9000 penises all raping...
She was being trolled?
You mean it wasn't from the Lincoln Project?
https://twitter.com/Partisan_O/status/1479526786161684488?t=1GC8iOiFl-BKiRgbtkbufg&s=19
Whelp, gents, today confirms the elite consensus on vaccines is that they prevent transmission of the virus.
How many of our social betters sincerely believe this?
How many of our social betters sincerely believe this?
None, but they'll all pretend they do as long as it benefits the party.
"The Party" said Jews were a genetic danger...
1936 here we go!
"If you let me finish, there would be no more disease.", Hitler's Ghost.
...or Europe!
OH I GET IT!!!!!!
Hitler said there was a DISEASE.
We prevented him from
" VACCINATING PEOPLE" so now its OUR fault the ' zeaze is spreading!
IOW, PANDEMIC OF THE UNVACCINATED!!!!
Let's also not forget that at this point even the literal embodiment of The Science, Saint Fauci himself, has admitted that what the CDC is keep track of is the number of children who enter a hospital and test positive for SARS-CoV-2 while they're there as "hospitalized for COVID.
Perfectly healthy teenager breaks an arm on a skiing trip and tests positive in the hospital waiting room, then leaves three hours later with a cast? Hospitalized for COVID.
Fuckey was Sainted by using card tricks...
Old SNL skit...
https://twitter.com/GraduatedBen/status/1479515720778235914?t=pjAe7W1Nn66oxbr7yB48wQ&s=19
Kagan: “the government is paying for the medical services so they have the right to dictate details of those services”
In what world does Kagan live? There's no private health insurance? I know she's a lefty, and an academic, so the idea that one might have to pay for something oneself is not in her experience, but damn, poor showing at SCOTUS from the wimmin.
Amy Barrett has been consistently impressive.
It's a TDS progshit issue, not gender.
Not only is everything she said untrue, it is irrelevant. Even if it was true: It doesn't matter. The question before the court is not, "Are vaccines important?" The question before the court is, "Does OSHA have the authority to mandate vaccines in workplaces without input from congress." Does the act of congress giving OSHA its authority, authorize it to mandate vaccines in the workplace? If not, it is up to Congress, not OSHA, to take on this issue. (Of course then you get into the question of the constitutionality of such a law, but that issue is for the trial that would follow the passage of such an act of congress, not this trial). It doesn't matter if you think that vaccines SHOULD be mandated. You are not there to bend the law to fit your opinions. You are there to uphold the law. This is just more proof that Sotomayor should never have been confirmed to the court. She has no understanding of what her role is, no respect for the constitution or the rule of law. She simply sees her position as a way to impose her views on others, regardless of the law. (To be fair, all of the justices have a tendency to do this from time to time on certain issues, but it seems like it is ALL Sotomayor does.) I miss RBG. While I disagreed with her often, I respected the fact that she almost always had a reverence and respect for her position and for placing the law and constitution above personal and political considerations. Sotomayor doesn't even seem to realize that that's her job.
Wow! We were composing the same thoughts at the same time.
This seems to be such a fundamental principle of government in the United States. How in the world is it that only two nut cases on a message board on a formally libertarian site can come up with this notion? Every kid who passed through fourth grade in the United States should be able to come up with this exact notion immediately in response to this ridiculous scenario.
Probably because the government that is abusing these powers took over the school system and willfully suppressed teaching critical thinking and teaching about the Constitution while instead attempting to make students reliant upon others to do their thinking for them and to solve their problems for them so that they would be susceptible to this kind of manipulation.
Oh come on. There's no conspiracy. Academics has always been dominated by left-leaning people. They're the ones who seek out to be teachers and school administrators. Those who don't fit in politically are made to feel so uncomfortable and unwelcome that they find a different job. The ones who stay do indeed to what you say, but not because of some grand government conspiracy to dumb down the schools. It's because the people involved have the same political mindset due to self selection. Same as 90% of cops give that 10% of good cops a bad name. Because good cops aren't welcome on the force, just as non-leftists aren't welcome in the classroom.
100 years ago the communist party formulated their strategy to take over academia. It's a basic function of the communist game plan. They have made no secret of their desire to dominate education circles.
Maybe so, but I laugh at those who say it's conscious and organized.
Just like you aren't going to find many commies on the floor of the stock exchange, you're not going to find many diehard capitalists teaching classes.
Well, not competent ones...
The only thing that saves us from tyranny is the fact that government is staffed mostly by idiots.
There is an organization to it. If you've ever listened to people who were (or are) committed Marxists or Trotskyists, they'll tell you about 'the long march' and how seriously they took it.
One good source I would recommend is Peter Hitchens, former Trotskyist. Listen carefully to his interviews about Tony Blair and his administration-- Tony Blair was a fellow Trotskyist of Hitchens and never has recanted, nor discussed it much.
Hitchens describes a meeting of his young Marxists where a man came to speak with them and told them (I'm paraphrasing) "All you're doing is handing out pamphlets on street corners. You're never going to get anywhere with that... you need to head out into society, get jobs in government, media, education and start influencing society through those mechanisms". And so off Hitchens went to be a journalist.
Here's an interview where Hitchens describes how radical the Blair administration was.
Also, one of the greatly misunderstood things about Hollywood is just how infiltrated (and controlled) the writers guilds were by the Soviet Union. Hell, there was a famous event with a major Hollywood screenwriter where he told his fellow marxists to tone the propaganda down. He was excoriated in a struggle session where he subsequently published bowing and scraping apologies, and even denounced those few writers that came to his defense.
What's interesting is he explains why he and his fellow cohorts (Blair) were "Trotskyists" and not Marxists. Specifically, it allowed them to disclaim responsibility for the Soviet Disaster.
Discussion of Blair starts @ around 12:30.
The British Secretary of Defense, in an interview said "Oh well, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will..." which was a quote from Antonio Gramsci, the great Italian Marxist of the 1930s.
So the Brits vote in the most conservative government in 40 years. America gets TDS, Limousine private jet Marxists and voters too lazy to read Brandon’s website.
"Academics has always been dominated by left-leaning people."
Not really. Before public schooling, academics was dominated by the church. Granted the right-leaning people tend to be just as authoritarian as the left, just in different ways...
But I wasn't really trying to imply a grand conspiracy as much as cause and effect. Because schools are now government entities, they benefit from expansion of government power, so the way they lean in their teaching is designed to favor that outcome.
Government employees feather their nest? I'm shocked!
I can see how my use of the "willfully suppressed" sounded like "grand conspiracy" but I didn't mean it that way as much as the educators themselves willfully suppressed those things because they favored expansion of government which benefited the educators...
https://thepostmillennial.com/mother-charged-after-locking-covid-positive-14-year-old-child-in-trunk-to-quarantine?utm_campaign=64499
She's a teacher
So, irrational, cowardly, self-centered, and incompetent beyond the genetic make-up? Rimshot.
You are not there to bend the law to fit your opinions. You are there to uphold the law.
Reminds me of an interview I heard with a former Constitutional lawyer. I say former because he quit in disgust. He thought his job was to uphold the law, but it wasn't. His job was to invent justifications for laws. "This is the unconstitutional law we want to pass, what phrase can we take out of context to justify it?"
The Founders imagined the different branches of government holding each other in check while they compete for power. They never envisioned the branches colluding with each other to ignore the Constitution for the purpose of increasing government power.
His job was to represent his client.
Representing your client means advising them against breaking the law (and the constitution is the law), ensuring their right to due process and fair trials, and helping them to get the best possible deals within the law. Not aiding and abetting their lawlessness. In fact, aiding and abetting lawlessness in any other area of law practice is considered grounds for disbarment and possible criminal charges. To try and help patently unconstitutional laws remain in effect is to aid and abet the lawlessness of those who passed the laws. To adequately represent his clients he should advise them in how to amend the laws so that they fit within the constitution.
"Does OSHA have the authority to mandate vaccines in workplaces without input from congress."
This is Biden circumventing Congress to make personal law...
" Dictatorship"
I agree. Frankly it goes a lot farther than this case. The fact is that the entire way our government is currently running is counter to the constitution. FDR broke the government. He promised that it was a temporary measure in a time of emergency (sound familiar?) but it has become the basic way the government functions. The Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers. Only Congress can make laws. All of these Executive Branch Agencies that make "regulations" which carry the force of law are operating in a way that runs counter to the constitutional separation of powers.
temporary emergency is like temporary tax...
My ass its temporary!
Agreed. But this is not how left-leaning sorts, or feminists view any topic. They must process things based on emotional impact, and assume that everyone else is also the equivalent of a pre-adolescent in this regard.
So how DO you feel about 2+2?
Do you feel that its 5?
This is much more serious and consequential than simply a justice being profoundly ignorant of the reality she is attempting to make rulings based upon.
No, the real issue here is the fundamental function of the court. The high court of the land is not a finder of fact. The court is supposed to rule on the law, and the law alone. Either the government has a power or it does not have a power.
This is why I have a serious problem with the current theory of the high court of determining various levels of scrutiny. If we want to violate the constitution, do we apply strict scrutiny?
That is ridiculous. Either the constitution grants a power to the government or it does not. It is not conditional upon whether or not you can cry about the children. There is no clause written in invisible ink at the end of the first amendment that says, "unless it's really important."
We need a serious reckoning with our government. It is completely out of control. We wrote a constitution for a reason. To be unique amongst governments, and innovation that had never existed before. The law would rule, not men. We would grant only limited powers to the government. Only those powers granted in writing in the constitution would be afforded to the federal government.
For reasons of exigency, we allowed the courts to decide that it was to cumbersome to go around getting constitutional amendments every time you wanted to do something outside of the strict scope of the law. And now, here we are. With a supreme Court that includes one justice who is particularly political and who also thinks that the federal government has the power to command its citizens to buy broccoli. (If you do not know that this is facially farcical, please refrain from voting.... And perhaps from general public participation on any matter of import.)
Whether you are on one side of this case or the other side, the notion that it hinges upon whether or not 100,000 kids are in serious condition with covid should create immense anxiety within you. The Constitution is supposed to be above this sort of momentary passionate motivation. Oh my God, think of the kids is supposed to be for Congress... In particular for the lower house.
The high court is supposed to rule on the letter of the law. Either a power is granted to the federal government, or it is not. They are not supposed to be holding their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
Exactly!
We would grant only limited powers to the government. Only those powers granted in writing in the constitution would be afforded to the federal government.
There was opposition to the Bill of Rights. Some of the Founders vehemently opposed putting those restrictions on the government. Why? Because the enumerated powers didn't giver the government the power to do the things the BoR said it couldn't do. They were afraid that should certain restrictions be defined, that those would be the only restrictions. That enumerated powers would be ignored.
They were right. Though I imagine that without the BoR things would be a lot worse.
I think your last sentence is spot on.
If they can make up exceptions to "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law" which are absolute prohibitions, surely they would have justified limitless powers fairly quickly.
"Congress has the power to anything necessary and proper to promote the general welfare and regulate commerce."
That's the abridged version of limited powers that congress and the courts operate on. Power limited only by the BoR.
Not even really limited by the BoR since they can ignore the BoR if they can pass whatever level of "scrutiny" they've assigned to the issue...
Yet they still throw us a bone now and then, like Heller.
Yeah, without the Bill of Rights they wouldn't have had to invent the idiotic idea of "levels of scrutiny"...
Anything too cumbersome for the federal government to not amend the constitution should be things the federal government has nothing to do with.
Bingo.
You are far more of a drama queen about this than Justice Sotomayor would every be.
You are assigning a handful of words she said a meaning that justifies your griping and moaning.
You didn't even have the intellectual curiosity to challenge what the article spoon-fed you.
Sotomayor never said all these kids were hospitalized.
Yep, Troll
All ad hominem attacks.
"Follow the science (unless it conflicts with your political biases)"
Ban her from social media outlets.
Why the hell are justices opining on matters of fact at all? That is not their job and not appropriate in an actual session.
Democrats lie. Who knew, eh?
And Harris, on her back!
...the right-leaning justices seemed skeptical that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had the authority to craft such a regulation without new input from Congress, whereas the three liberal justices appeared to believe the mandate was necessary given the public health emergency posed by COVID-19.
Only one side of that seems to have anything to do with the question of constitutionality.
If its so g- damn important, why havent CONgress made a law?
Theyve had 3 calendar years!
Or any kind of legality for that matter.
see I thought you author-types with platforms were supposed to be the guys who stood up and wrote things like "Wise Latina Completely Full of Shit to Further Emperor Brandon" because 1A gives you the goddam right.
By the way, I'm really... REALLY looking forward to a Reuters/Politifact/AP fact check explaining why Sotomayor is "technically correct", ruling her statement "mostly true".
Or the inverse: the fact check on people who called her out, calling their statements "mostly false".
PolitiFact rated it False.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/07/sonia-sotomayor/fact-checking-sotomayor-kids-severe-covid-19/
We're in deep shit when the Reason commentary knows their shit far better than sitting justices.
Deep shit.
...like the two hillbillies in the hay loft.
Loft catches fire. In the dark.
Only way out is jumping into the hog pen.
One jumps. The other shouts " how deep is the shit?"
"Up to my ankles!"
The other jumps in, up to his nose.
"You said ' up to my ankles.' "
" Yeah but I jumped in head first!"
The part that strikes me is that he's still willing to open his mouth to talk to the second guy.
...now get Leftists to understand that!
They have mouthfuls of shit.
I think we've been there for a while. At least on things like this that are not their area of expertise.
WOW!!! A liberal judge lied and exaggerated??? Say it isnt so...
The SCOTUS is nothing but an enabler for the federal government.
Kagan also led off by saying that the vaccine mandate is the policy "most geared to stopping the pandemic" and that there is "nothing else that will perform that function better".
If the cost to liberty of a policy is no longer of any import, then it sounds like nationwide house arrest might actually function to stop the pandemic better than jabs for [some] workers.
The sooner we all refuse to participate in the fear orgy, the better off everyone will be.
Before the United States existed, colonies had laws that gave governors extra police powers in a public health crisis. There were quarantines. There were forced vaccinations.
These powers continued over the centuries till today.
SCOTUS has ruled several times that although morality and law usually favor respecting individual autonomy, in a public health crisis, morality and law favor acting for the common good.
That is the Right's moral and legal failure.
What's more, the Right bizarrely arrogated the pro-choice slogan "my body, my choice" (capacity for original and critical thinking all but lost) to shine a spotlight on the dearth of morality on its positions.
The government regulating employers with 100+ employees to require vaccinations or weekly tests and mask-wearing is tyranny worthy of secession.
The government forcing girls and women to carry a pregnancy they do not consent to (consent to sex is NOT consent to pregnancy), depriving them of liberty and pursuit of happiness, and placing their lives in jeopardy (especially Black women, who have extremely high maternal mortality rates in the US) because the tyranny of the majority has an irrational, superstitious belief a zygote is a human being with Fourteenth Amendment rights, even though the its very first words are "All persons BORN in the United States" -- no problem!!
Perfectly logical!!
The " gears" havent stopped it in 2 years...
I think theyre stripped out!
Its easy to spot them lying, they use colorful descriptive phrases like that that are utter nonsense.
would we have this problem if Marbury was decided correctly?
Justice Sotomayor
ExaggeratedLied About the Number of Severe COVID-19 Cases Among ChildrenFIFY
The oral arguments today were a shit show. We are told the mandates are necessary because forcing the jab means we stop infection and spread. But the vaxx clearly doesn't do that. That's all that needed to be said. But, nope. The final nail in the coffin of the Republic. And there will be zero pushback.
Sotomayor - showing us how to be wrong for a dozen reasons simultaneously.
golf clap
It's one thing for legislators to make up numbers to justify their positions on legislation. They are subject to debate and answerable to their constitutency for any error.
It is totally another thing for a judge to make up numbers to justify a position on an adjudication. It is impeachable misconduct, and this idiot needs to be removed from the Supreme Court.
My thoughts exactly. She is supposed to rule according to the law, not her personal opinions and fears. What mechanism is in place to remove her?
Today is brought to you by the letter "I":
Impeachment
Insurrection
Being an idiot is more common than you seem to think.
Why is it a publication/website named REASON has mostly trolls posting comments?
Where's the reasoned thinking? Or is this now a GQP-rant sort of Reddit rhetoric?
Because a handful of progshits keep making new socks.
She wasn't under oath. There's not really any recourse for reprimanding her for quoting false information, other than to correct her on it. But you won't find any mainstream news source that actually points this out. If you just search for stories about the hearing today, Sotomayor's misinformation doesn't come up. You can search for those specific terms and find it, but if you didn't know she was blatantly spreading false information, you wouldn't learn about it.
Why was she putting out numbers at all? Her job is to rule on the facts presented in oral arguments, not supplement them with her own...
Did anyone ask how one hundred became the magic number?
Can a virus count, or what?
Thats the " arbitrary" part if " arbitrary and capricious"
Should be enough to sink it right there.
Its an enforcement threshhold. Below that, they cant make enough money to justify it.
The "wise Latina" doesn't appear to have lost any weight which is her biggest risk factor with the disease. Keep staying home and wearing the stupid mask.
Jesus shines bright in you.
Thank you for your testimony.
"But if she is trying to justify President Joe Biden's far-reaching and unprecedented vaccine mandate on the grounds that the disease is uniquely dangerous to children..."
Well, of course Justice Sotomayor is not. What an odd take.
Let's talk reality - - odd for Americans, I know.
These lawsuits have nothing to do with wariness about OSHA or whether "the vaccine mandate" (everything the Right resents is a "mandate") is unconstitutional.
This is nothing more than GQP attorneys general and Trump judges (and some Bush judges radicalized by Trump judges) reversing their former exaltation of the unitary executive ("None can stop him! He is the government," as if Trump were Spider-Man) because a Democrat is president. Unsurprisingly, SCOTUS activist justices do the same.
When Trump was president, Federalist Society judges proclaimed his policies and the United States' were one and the same.
With Biden as president, they proclaim his policies and the United States' must remain Trump's.
Trump's immigration policies violated federal law and international treaties. On top of that, the Department of Homeland Security had no valid administration for most of Trump's fourth year. All decisions made were presumptively void. But the judiciary is inexplicably
Three more years of no judicial restraint, throwing any misfit justification at the wall to see what sticks to essentially overrule the popular vote of the People, something Republicans evidently can no longer manage to achieve (minus "W," as a wartime president and, wow, was that regrettable).
Ah down to Trump Hating...so childish
Judge Pinocchio is more like it
I thot media reports etc were supposed to be kept out of trials?
Theres a long history of media tampering with due process.
Dick Cavett did a show partly on that topic, it was on rerun tv lately.
It's easy to look at the liberal justices ( they all said things today that just aren't true) and say they're uninformed. Well, the problem is most of them have help from their interns and how many of those interns have serious political leanings? No, it's scary enough to think these justices would rule on a constitutional question and base their decision on facts that just aren't true, but the fact is they're supposed to be ruling on the constitution and I, for one, do not want OSHA, or the President for that matter, being authorized by the court to mandate a vaccine which is proving itself to be unreliable.
It would be interesting to have exchange programs between interns of opposed ideologies with cooperative results tied to paycheck incentives.
Off topic, but important:
https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/1479517789450911747?t=PwhQY5vCSx4tuDS2mUQLtQ&s=19
The situation in Kazakhstan is a much bigger deal than Western media is letting on.
I believe it significantly increases the risk of NATO-Russia conflict.
Here is my report from Moscow. A MEGA-thread...
First, what is happening in Kazakhstan?
Mass protests and anti-government violence have left dozens dead.
Russia is deploying 3,000 paratroopers after Kazakh security forces were overrun.
The largest city, Almaty, looks like a warzone.
To appreciate why Russia is willing to deploy troops to Kazakhstan, it's critical to understand the depth of Russia's vital national interests inside the country.
This isn't just any former Soviet republic.
It's almost as important to Russia as Belarus or Ukraine.
First, Russia and Kazakhstan have the largest continuous land border on planet earth.
If Kazakhstan destabilizes, a significant fraction of the country's 19 million residents could become refugees streaming across the border.
Russia is not willing to let that happen.
Second, roughly one-quarter of the population of Kazakhstan is ethnic Russians.
Kazakh nationalists are overwhelmingly Muslims, who resent the Orthodox-Christian Russian minority.
Russia believes that civil war would entail a non-trivial risk of anti-Russian ethnic cleansing.
Third, the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was the heart of the Soviet space program.
Russia still uses it as its primary space-launch facility.
The Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia's Far East will lessen that dependence, but it still isn't complete.
Fourth, Russia conducts its Anti-Ballistic Missile testing at the Sary-Shagan test site within Kazakhstan.
This is where ongoing development of the S-550 ABM system is occurring, one of the foundations of Russia's national security.
Fifth, Russia's nuclear fuel cycle is intimately linked to Kazakhstan.
Russian-backed Uranium mining operations are active in the country.
Uranium from Kazakhstan is enriched in Novouralsk, Russia and then returned to Kazakhstan for use in Chinese nuclear-fuel assemblies.
Collectively, these security interests make Kazakhstan a region that Russia is willing to stabilize with force.
The 3,000 troops it has already committed are not the maximum it is willing to deploy.
If necessary, these will only be the first wave of RU forces in the country.
The biggest question is how the situation in Kazakhstan will affect the existing standoff between Russia and NATO over Ukraine.
Will Russia be deterred from intervention in Ukraine by the need to maintain reserves to deploy to Kazakhstan?
Or will it simply be provoked?
Recall that, before things escalated in Kazakhstan, Russia had massed troops along its border with Ukraine.
Moscow issued an ultimatum: Provide security guarantees that Ukraine would not join NATO "or else."
This was already a very dangerous situation.
NATO-Russia talks to resolve the crisis in Ukraine were set to begin next week.
Yet, on their eve, the revolution against the government of Kazakhstan began.
Russia perceives this to be an act of "hybrid war." Right or wrong, that perception is fueling a desire for revenge.
What is "hybrid war"?
From the Russian perspective, it is a two-pronged approach to regime change.
First, Western-backed NGOs encourage large protests against an incumbent government.
Second, armed provocateurs use the protests as cover to stage kinetic attacks.
Moscow believes that this playbook was employed successfully in Ukraine to oust the Russian-aligned government in 2014.
And it believes that the West unsuccessfully attempted to employ the same strategy to topple Russia's allies in Syria and Belarus.
It's debatable whether the West has anywhere near the power to spark revolutions that Russia contends.
Yet America plays into Russian paranoia by funding "civil society" NGOs overseas.
When revolutions occur in countries where they're active, Russia connects the dots.
Kazakhstan is the latest example.
In the year before the attempted revolution, the U.S. National Endowment for democracy spent more than $1M in the country.
The money went to PR campaigns against the government and training anti-government protesters.
KAZAKHSTAN 2020 - NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACYDefending Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Kazakhstan International Bureau of Human Rights and Rule of Law $50,000 To promote freedom of peaceful assembly in Kazakhstan. The organization
The Russians are convinced that NED is a front for the CIA.
I don't think that's true.
But it's a distinction without a difference, since NED has taken over part of the CIA's mission.
In 1986, the founder of NED, Carl Gershman, said the group was created because "[i]t would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the CIA."
Today, instead of receiving CIA money, they receive NED money.
In 1991, NED President Allen Weinstein said, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
He claimed that operating overtly via NED, rather than covertly through the CIA, made the risk of blowback "close to zero."
The Russians do not see things that way.
When they witness overt U.S. support for ousting pro-Russian governments, they assume there is also covert support being provided.
To them, NED is only 1/2 of a "hybrid war" strategy in Kazakhstan that includes kinetic operations.
Russia's Foreign Ministry made that clear yesterday.
It describes the situation in Kazakhstan as "an attempt to undermine the security and integrity of the state by force, using trained and organized armed formations, that is inspired from the outside."
This claim forms the predicate for intervention by the "Collective Security Treaty Organization," the Russian-led equivalent of NATO.
It's the first ever CSTO intervention, and it's based on the accusation of a foreign attack on the sovereignty of Kazakhstan.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has questioned the legal legitimacy of the CSTO operation, but there's not much to complain about.
The undisputed President of Kazakhstan, Tokayev, requested CSTO support, claiming his nation was under attack.
To bolster the appearance of multilateralism, RU forces are deploying alongside smaller number of troops from two other CSTO states, Belarus and Armenia.
These CSTO forces will secure critical government installations, freeing up the Kazakh military to perform "anti-terrorism."
The most critical function of the CSTO deployment is internal signaling within Kazakhstan.
Now that Kazakh forces know Russia is backing their government, fewer of them will be willing to join the side of the opposition.
We saw that happen before. I doubt we'll see it again.
In the short term, while Kazakhstan remains volatile, Russia's freedom to maneuver in Ukraine may be constrained.
But this will not motivate Moscow to deescalate the crisis in the long term.
Instead, it will only strengthen perceptions of the West as an existential threat.
Activists from prior color revolutions are already publicly taking credit for what is happening in Kazakhstan.
Here is a post from Belorussian activist, Dzmitry Halko, who says that he helped organize the uprising in Kazakhstan along with veterans of the Ukraine revolution.
The Kremlin's biggest fear is a "Maidan on Red Square" – i.e., a repeat of the Ukrainian revolution inside Moscow.
The more that it appears the West is pursuing similar revolutions in former Soviet republics, the more aggressively Russia will push back.
In America, the situation in Kazakhstan is a small news item.
In Moscow, it is currently receiving 24/7 news coverage, like it's an apocalyptic threat to Russia's security.
I've had the TV on here while writing this thread, and Kazakhstan has been on the entire time.
It's important to note that today is Christmas in Russia.
(They celebrate it on January 7th rather than December 25th, due to the Russian Orthodox church still adhering to the Julian Calendar.)
When Christmas is overshadowed by a security crisis, it's a big deal.
Oh crap...
"First, Western-backed NGOs encourage large protests against an incumbent government.
Second, armed provocateurs use the protests as cover to stage kinetic attacks."
Just like they do here!
J6 in particular.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1479573526080196608?t=mRgxDdIa92Nql2x5AvXnPA&s=19
The American government is now denying medial treatment to individuals based on race. That's what happens when critical race theory becomes public policy.
what happened to Obama Cares " no rationing?"
Health care for all?
My ass...
This reveals clearly how Sotomayor makes rulings based on politics, ideology and/or personal preference rather than the law.
i can't be sure she lied...I mean she stated something false,.buy I have so many perfectly art good friends that just have no real grasp on how small the Covid threat is to children. They are so scared they are actually made stupid. They can't believe the data since it doesn't match their emotions.. We are emotional beings, so instead of changing their minds, they just doubt or deny or ignore the facts.
I never fully understood the FDR quote, " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" until this pandemic hit.
Basic qualifications to be a justice on the highest court being called into question, or outright falsification to further an ideological agenda.
Liar or idiot, either has no place there.
no excuse. She is in a very high position with connections.
She can find the facts. She doesnt want to.
.Hyperbolaes more politically expedient.
https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1479583097217859591?t=UjOfF8vuS55vme8ZOF2HSA&s=19
Recap of what Supreme Court justices claim as fact:
- 99% of hospitalized are unvaccinated
- over 100,000 children hospitalized
- 750 million positive cases yesterday
- vaccines stop transmission
- Omicron deadlier than Delta
- OSHA has broad police power
Did I miss anything?
Some more:
-best policy is to get vaccinated
-"second best is to wear masks"
-Covid is "bloodborne"
-hospitalization growing by factor of 10
-masks mandate is no different from vaccine mandate
-humans are like dangerous machines spewing virus
-forced vaccines is political policy
"Recap of what Supreme Court justices claim as fact:
- 99% of hospitalized are unvaccinated."
Fact checking the fact checker seems important. Should know who "Hans" is?
- the President can tell us how to decide to fit his agenda.
Just put of curiosity…Did any of our esteemed establishment “Fact Checker” websites call her out on this? Oh, say…. POLITFACT (!!!!!!!) ?
They only check the opposition.
It does seem that their record is checkered
I don't think she's a liar, exactly, it's just because she's the most left judge, she pretty much has the same covid panic that the rest of the left does where she hears panicky stuff and it inflates insider her brain.
Like when you point out the children don't really suffer from Covid, they will counter with crap like long covid, developmental affects, and blah blah blah
second Troll copy- pasting that.
If Sotomayor lied to try and push for a ruling in favor of this “vaccine”, then she should be disbarred!
If Sotomayor really is that stupid, she should be called on it and be disbarred!
I'm a new subscriber to //Reason//. For some reason, the name of the magazine I guess, I didn't expect the Comment Section to be full of partisans with fangs dripping wisdom and contempt.
second Troll this week posting that BS " attacking the Messenger" comment.
Or same Troll different Sock Puppet account
I guess you're a progshit, Deelion.
I'm not much of a team player. It's demeaning to be a banner waver. But it guess it makes sense. If civil war breaks out, that way at least one side will take you in.
"Guess My Politics"
?
OK...
Homosexual?
While Sotomayor is clearly showing willful ignorance and/or blatant lying and partisanship, let’s not forget that Robert’s argued for Obamacare as legal and justified because the mandate was actually a “Tax”. Keep in mind that the attorneys arguing for Obamacare argued very explicitly that the mandate was NOT a tax. Like it or not, partisan politics are alive and well in the one institution where they are supposed to be banned.
False comparision.
She LIED does not compare to " considering all sides of the question" in a Legal proceeding.
Soneone must argue ( what you claim without a reference) what Roberts said.
And BTW, "Judges" dont "argue."
Attorneys ( Plaintiff and Defendents) and interested Partiss bring arguments.
Not Judges. Judges should be IMPARTIAL.
NOT lying radical Left wing Activists like Sortamexican.
.So your comment is 97% bullshit.
It seems that Sonia Sotomayor clicked on news article on Google search from over a year ago. Or, she is just confused and lost in the weeds about the subject.
Even if she had a valid point, it is not the role of the courts to make policy or law no matter how pressing an emergency might be. The courts are to interpret the law, and for the Supreme Court, especially, it is to determine the constitutionality of the law. It is not to determine whether the law is best public policy.
It seems that Sonia Sotomayor clicked on news article on Google search from over a year ago. Or, she is just confused and lost in the weeds about the subject.
Even if she had a valid point, it is not the role of the courts to make policy or law no matter how pressing an emergency might be. The courts are to interpret the law, and for the Supreme Court, especially, it is to determine the constitutionality of the law.
It is not to determine whether the law is best public policy.
Theres a 'more emergency' situation with shortages. Ships backed up. Goods not being transported.
People are STARVING!
Wheres Slo Joe on that?
Fast asleep at the table, drooling in his Applesauce.
"Wise Latina," indeed. When someone makes a deal of how wise they are, it's often evidence they are not.
"If by serious condition, Sotomayor meant hospitalized, then her claim is false." She didn't say hospitalized, so that is not what she meant. Apparently this author has never dealt with a lawyer that isn't advertising on the side of the bus. High power Lawyers who become judges choose their words very carefully. She didn't use the word hospitalized on purpose.
Pettifog, Esq.
if theyre in serious condition then where are they? Lowes?
Stupid twisted reasoning.
Reason and it’s commenting subscribers have drifted far off course from the founding principles of a legitimate right- libertarian publication. “Seeking truth via rational discourse, free inquiry, and the scientific method,” is a key part of Reasons manifesto. However, an elementary school student could easily distinguish as such the “truth” of the accurately quoted and detailed thoughts of a highly respected U S Supreme Court Justice as compared to an author/publications false and misleading headline reporting of those thoughts purposefully modified to suggest they mean something else (or rather she actually meant to say something different than she did).
it is routine for all nine Justices to mention or refer to facts provided to them in the briefs of parties and hundreds of friends of the court briefs as well as the bench memos of their own clerks. The number J. Sotomayor was referring to was surely the widespread reported number that the U.S. had seen over 100,000 new cases of minors with Covid on each of the prior couple of days to the hearing. Indeed, many of these cases have been resulting in hospitalization and kids being put in ventilators. what I want to know though is which Reason members think that one let alone 100,000 children getting covid is acceptable.
The anti female and latin racist number of comments in this chain is disappointing and elands credence to Reason being as much a part of misleading, alternative facts as any persons on the left.
I will gladly be counted among those who STRONGLY believe that "one let alone 100,000 children getting covid is acceptable." It's not only acceptable, but hugely beneficial and desirable. For children to get infected at an age when they are most resistant to the virus is one of the best, most healthful things that can happen to them, and to the populations in which they live. There is a very, very tiny risk that getting the disease might cause them great harm - a risk substantially smaller than the risk of such harm from influenza and many other viruses - while the likelihood of benefit to them and others around them is overwhelming. This virus will not be scrubbed from the face of the earth, but it will lose its strength and become increasingly tolerable as more and more of the population get infected and survive. That's how humans have acquired natural immunity to millions of viruses that we encounter every day. That's basic science taught in medical school and to undergrads in microbiology and evolutionary biology classes. It's even taught in some high school biology classes. If our "government doctors" even attended those classes, they weren't listening.
Your bullshit Attack the Messenger comment was a deliberate lie... you tried to reframe her LYING as " she just stated."
Thats the Guilty pleading to a lesser charge abd axTroll Fail.
Youre too late to the Party, several other idiot Trolls beat you to it.
"Suppressed Evidence
Intentionally failing to use significant and relevant information which counts against one’s own conclusion."
https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
Two LIES... missed this one:
""Omicron is as deadly as delta and causes as much serious disease.."
Liar liar robe on fire.
Shed do well to remember that Pearl Clutching when Roe v. Wade comes up.
She wont care if children die then.
Gdamn hypocrite.
Isnt her conduct, lying, against Rules of the Court?
Spaceballs is on!
" I said ' across her nose', not 'up it'!"
Meanwhile, this author cheers the "clear election victory" of someone who clearly and victoriously won't do a f'ing thing about it. The USDA has a bureaucratic empire to protect!!............www.now37.com
SCOTUS judges should be put under oath if they want to make a speech. Sotomayor was there to advance her whacked point of view instead of listening to the arguments of the attorneys.
Bitch, Please!
Black Jesus said she was a wise Latina.
In her confirmation hearing she flat out said she uses race to determine her ruleings
It wasn't Obama, she said she was a wise Latina.
? Don't get the reference
thats insurrection talk!
I-bama said Hillary was the best choice....while he stood there, refusing to make eye contact with her.
theyre Poster Children for MPD!
Yes. Or he means that we need to use the mechanisms of democracy -- the right to petition the government and the voting box -- to influence or remove from office those who abuse their power and ignore the constitution. But, these days any disagreement with the government is insurrection talk. Just like all other totalitarian regimes....