Second Thoughts on Sotomayor (and Breyer)
My readers improved my thinking
I’ve changed my mind about this post from yesterday.
Several readers, including a lawyer, pointed out that I am giving too much credit to Sotomayor and Breyer for rattling off a list of Covid and vaccine lies.
The most compelling correction was the “reasonable person” standard. By that standard, we must conclude that Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer intentionally lied during oral arguments yesterday. Here are the lies, as documented by Dr. Simone Gold on Gab:
Supreme Court Justices just falsely claimed:
1. The jab prevents transmission
2. Omicron is as deadly as Delta
3. 100K children are hospitalized with COVID, many on ventilators
4. Vax mandates would prevent 100% of cases
5. Hospitals are overrun
Every point is provably false. Even a ‘casual’ look at the medical literature would have enlightened the Justices.
Their ignorance and dangerous spreading of misinformation is a serious problem.
Yesterday, I gave the justices the benefit of the doubt. I postulated that their false statements could have been the result of a rather aggressive form of low cognitive functioning or the fruits of mass formation psychosis.
Or both stupidity and psychosis. But I was probably wrong to place so much trust in their integrity.
More than likely, Justices Sotomayor and Breyer declared these lies in order to manipulate public opinion. No reasonable person could conclude anything else.
Here’s how my readers know the pair was intentionally lying rather than exposing their ignorance.
A reasonable with their education and experience in the situation they were in yesterday would take care to make statements of fact only if they had a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of their statements. As lawyers, they would reasonably know of their duty to separate their opinions or speculation from solid fact.
Yet, Sotomayor and Breyer stated as absolute fact five points of fiction that any reasonable person with an iPhone could verify in less than a minute. As Dr. Simone listed, they falsely claimed:
1. The jab prevents transmission. FALSE (CDC)
2. Omicron is as deadly as Delta. FALSE (Dr. Anthony Fauci)
3. 100K children are hospitalized with COVID, many on ventilators. FALSE (Media Reports 1)
4. Vax mandates would prevent 100% of cases. FALSE (CDC)
5. Hospitals are overrun. FALSE (Johns Hopkins)
In no case did the justices soften their assertions by implying the possibility of error. Nor did they attribute their knowledge to any source. Instead, they made these statements of fact as if their facts were commonly held a priori truths.
Yet, their ‘untouchable truths’ are, in fact, complete and verifiable lies expounded from the bench by Harvard-educated lawyers and Supreme Court justices who have at their disposal the most advance search tools in the world. Their lies are disputed by the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Washington Post, and even the manufacturers of the vaccines.
Rather than victims of propaganda and mass hypnosis, I now believe Justices Sotomayor and Breyer are perpetrators of propaganda and mass hypnosis. Their lies were intended to confuse the public and manipulate public opinion.
Furthering this damning allegation is the fact the none of their false statements was material to the case. The case is about the powers of the president, not a debate on the merits of masks, vaccines, and social distancing. Those public health matters are tangential. If the president lacks the Constitutional authority to mandate vaccines for every American worker, it wouldn’t matter if vaccines were 100% effective (they’re not), completely safe (they’re the most dangerous vaccines ever released), and would save 100 million lives—the president simply would not have the authority to mandate them and his diktat must be struck down.
Based on the above, I must now conclude that Sotomayor and Breyer were simply lying in order to manipulate public opinion to further their political agenda. For that, they should be impeached and any prior Supreme Court decision that relied on their votes should be retried.