Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor poses in the official group photo at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Nov. 30, 2018. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
Commentary
Sonia Sotomayor’s ludicrous claim before
her Supreme Court peers during oral arguments that one hundred thousand
children were “in serious condition” from COVID-19 when
three thousand would have been more accurate, is far more than just an
embarrassment to the justice.
How
could such an ill-informed person be a justice of our highest court? What else
doesn’t she know—or, perhaps more exactly, doesn’t want to know?
Her
full quotation makes it sound still worse.
“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, many on ventilators.”
None of
those are true. We are currently going through a bump in cases of the vastly
weaker Omicron variant, which many have compared to a cold and in the vast
majority of instances can be treated at home with therapeutics.
Even
extreme vaccine enthusiast CDC director Rochelle Wallensky admitted that
hospitalizations for other age groups were fifteen fold greater than the
pediatric—and those weren’t much.
Sotomayor
wasn’t alone on the court with her what some might euphemistically call
“mischaracterization.” Justice Stephen Breyer claimed “750 million new cases”
of coronavirus had been reported in our country when the entire population is
well less than half that.
Can you
get two cases of COVID-19 at once? Who’d a thunk it?
What’s
going on here? Are the two Supreme Court justices taking stupid pills? Is the
“Wise Latina” not so wise after all?
She may
not be a legal genius but that’s not the problem. The problem is what I have
called “want-to-believe.”
Sotomayor
and Breyer are so convinced of liberal/conservative ideology that they are
unable even to see the arguments of the other side, sometimes to the extent
that they do not even know they are there, that they exist.
This is
even true when the arguments are about science, not politics—when facts, not
opinions, are most important.
Have
either of these people—Supreme Court justices who must have known for months
that they were going to have to rule on matters concerning COVID—read any of
the books on the subject by Alex Berenson, Dr. Scott Atlas, or Robert F.
Kennedy Jr., himself obviously a liberal? Have they viewed any of the detailed
videos made by Drs. Peter McCullough and Robert Malone, some available right
here on The Epoch Times, warning of the significant dangers of vaccinating
children with barely tested mRNA? (Malone, incidentally, was one of the mRNA
vaccine inventors.)
Have
they even read the Great Barrington Declaration? Do they know who signed
it or what their backgrounds were (Harvard, Oxford and Stanford, among others)?
Do they even know what it is?
In all
probability, the answer to most, possibly all, of these questions is no. It is
for almost every liberal or progressive I know. They are bathed in what are
deemed the proper morally narcissistic views by the New York Times and CNN and
accept them like automatons. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
In the
case of COVID, this kind of extreme ignorance has left dead bodies across the
globe. Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin be damned, even if they save millions
of people. After all, Trump recommended them. They have to be bad.
Can you
imagine anything more idiotic, less scientific?
But
that’s where we are on our Supreme Court, of all places, the new haven of
know-nothingism. Mere bias wasn’t enough.
Sotomayor
should obviously recuse herself from all matters regarding COVID.
She
won’t. The American left—straight up to SCOTUS justices apparently—is suffused
with a belief that everything they say is automatically correct, whatever they
think ought to be to be true is true.
Sotomayor
may not make a blunder as obvious as this one again, but the thought process—or
lack thereof—that led to it will not change.
You
might call it the anti-scientific method.
Views expressed in this article are the
opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch
Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment