Image 01 Image 03

Liberal Justices Spread COVID Misinformation During Vaccine Arguments

Liberal Justices Spread COVID Misinformation During Vaccine Arguments

Sotomayor: “Why is the human being not like a machine if it’s spewing a virus, blood-borne viruses?”

SCOTUS Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor displayed their ignorance on COVID stats when hearing arguments against Biden’s vaccine mandate.

As Bill wrote this morning: The first case, which has received the most attention, involves OSHA’s large employer vaccinate or test mandate (dockets here and here), and the second case involves a CMS mandate for healthcare workers (dockets here and here). In the OSHA case various states and other are suing to stop the OSHA order, in the CMS case the Biden administration is suing to reinstate the mandate after it was thrown out by a lower court.

We know vaccinated people can still get sick and transmit COVID to another person. We know there are 951 children in the hospital with COVID. From COVID though? Of course, they don’t separate the two!

We also know the Omicron strain is less severe than the Delta strain. Fauci has repeated this many times.

Let’s see what our leftist SCOTUS justices have to say! They’re smart, right? They have to know the facts, right? They would never come to an oral argument without the facts, right?

I would laugh, but these people will decide if the government can force us to inject a substance into our bodies.

Something else: With the audio clipped it sounds like Gorsuch says the flu kills “hundreds, thousands” of people. Listening to it in real-time I thought he said “hundreds of thousands.” But unfortunately, his estimate is still wrong. It’s NOTHING like the misinformation thrown at us by the liberals. As I said before the flu kills on average 36,000 people a year. As an immunocompromised person, I want the facts on all these viruses out there because the flu is dangerous to us like Covid, pneumonia, and even the common cold!

Correction: Now that the transcript is available, the precise quote from Sotomayor in the sub-headling has been corrected: “Why is the human being not like a machine if it’s spewing a virus, blood-borne viruses?” (Transcript at 29)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Worldwide the flu does kill hundreds of thousands yearly.

    goddessoftheclassroom in reply to molson. | January 7, 2022 at 2:50 pm

    *world wide

    Mary Chastain in reply to molson. | January 7, 2022 at 2:54 pm

    WORLDWIDE. This is about America.

      He’s still a lot closer than Breyer’s insane comment “750 million new cases yesterday”. According to Worldometer the *total* number of cases so far is just over 300 million. That is going back to when it started last year.

      Having spent the time to look for the Gorsuch statement, the transcript states “hundreds of thousands” (the passage in the article didn’t make clear which was correct), which is incorrect on a national annual basis. As FOAF notes, that is still far better than Breyer’s insanity.

    TargaGTS in reply to molson. | January 7, 2022 at 5:31 pm

    In actuality, we really have no idea how many people the flu kills each year in this country much less the rest of the world. Before this pandemic, do you know how often doctors ordered PCR tests to identify the flu strain of the patient they’re treating who’s hospitalized with ARDS? Never. It never happened. All of the flu data is estimated.

      Of or with. The weakest link in science is attribution.

      DaveGinOly in reply to TargaGTS. | January 8, 2022 at 1:47 pm

      Strictly true, but the estimate is very good. Statisticians predict the number of “expected deaths” we should see each year (all-cause mortality). When deaths don’t match the prediction, the stats of the actual deaths are parsed (temporally, by age, by sex, by location, date of death, etc.). Analysis of the data produces estimates for the causes of excess deaths. This is far more accurate than a WAG, and much less inaccurate than “no idea.” It leads to a pretty damn good idea of how many people died of just about anything.

johnny dollar | January 7, 2022 at 2:50 pm

You people are pretty bold, questioning the wisdom of the “wise Latina”.
Must be racism…

    MattMusson in reply to johnny dollar. | January 7, 2022 at 3:41 pm

    If the Vaccine DID stop transmission, than I would be endangering other people by not taking it. But, since the Vaccine DOES NOT stop transmission, I am only endangering myself. Legally and Morally there is a big difference.

      DocCW in reply to MattMusson. | January 7, 2022 at 4:17 pm

      No, you would be endangering them if while knowingly sick/symptomatic you made no attempt to isolate or decrease likelihood of contagion. They can vaccinate if they want to protect themselves. COVID could be 50% fatal and the vaccine 99.99% protective. Doesn’t change that OSHA has no legislated authority. CMS doesn’t really either. Regardless, both are unconstitutional affronts to individual liberty.

      If someone wants protecting, protect yourself, nothing stopping you. You don’t have a right to MAKE me protect you.

        n.n in reply to DocCW. | January 7, 2022 at 7:07 pm

        Penumbras and emanations and Twilight Amendment. Elective abortion of over 60 million viable human lives for social, redistributive, and fair weather causes in America alone has clear and progressive consequences. A handmade tale. A wicked solution.

      DaveGinOly in reply to MattMusson. | January 8, 2022 at 1:50 pm

      This is why there is no longer a public health interest in mandatory vaccination; forcing everyone to become vaccinated does not stop transmission. Vaccination, at best, only provides protection to the individual, making vaccination a matter of personal health, keeping the choice to become vaccinated a strictly personal matter.

    More likely an awareness that Affirmative Action is a abject failure and needs to be remediated; beginning with those who despite their wanting intellect were promoted as successes because of academics and their “fraud” – pay us and we’ll tell you how smart you are; we’ll even give you a piece of paper that says so.

    Pasadena Peabody in reply to johnny dollar. | January 7, 2022 at 5:30 pm

    She is wise in her own eyes.

    “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.”

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to johnny dollar. | January 7, 2022 at 5:41 pm

    Given that whatever we do these days, we are racists, I may as well BE what they call me.

    I have always wished someone would have asked if she could recommend a wise Latina

    Dimsdale in reply to johnny dollar. | January 7, 2022 at 7:35 pm

    The self appointed “wise Latina” is giving a bad name to both wise and Latina.

    Another embarrassing token hire by the big token hire himself.

    The woke term is Latinx.

    or something ridiculous like that.

Sotomayor will likely go down in history as one of the most unremarkable jurists to be on the supreme court. Even early on, I found her opinions to be rambling messes, full of rationalization instead of logic, devoid of any serious legal analysis, and more fitting for the gossip section of the high school newspaper than in any legal opinion. Not only does she lack legal intellect, she lacks common sense or any attachment to reality.

    Barry in reply to Guardian79. | January 7, 2022 at 4:08 pm

    “…one of the most unremarkable jurists to be on the supreme court.”

    Like all communists, if they are not outright lying, they are fundamentally stupid.

    I doubt more than 25% of all supreme court justices through history know why the water comes out the faucet, why the light bulb puts out light. They are not only unremarkable, they are flat out stupid.

    Dodomayor is affirmative action in action.

    Olinser in reply to Guardian79. | January 7, 2022 at 6:40 pm

    Then why did Lindsey Graham and his pack of RINOs vote for her.

    Ghostrider in reply to Guardian79. | January 7, 2022 at 7:17 pm

    I sincerely believe Affirmative Action, steadfastly utilized in college, law school, and medical school admissions decisions, was designed with this kind of outcome in mind.

    Can we leave a potential spot open for the most unremarkable – if VP Harris takes Breyer’s spot.

    TargaGTS in reply to Guardian79. | January 8, 2022 at 8:32 am

    But, what she has in spades is loyalty to the cause and for Dems, that’s all that matters. Republicans put jurists on the Court who will address important question of jurisprudence in an earnest and intellectual manner. Democrat put jurists on the Court who are reliable movement progressive.

    Over the past 100-years, I can’t think of a Justice nominated by a Democrat who moved to the right or even to the middle after confirmation. At the same time, some of the most leftwing Justices in the last five decades were nominated by Republicans. Hell, FOUR of the seven votes deciding Roe v Wade came from Justices who were nominated by Republicans.

    RG37205 in reply to Guardian79. | January 8, 2022 at 7:03 pm

    Oh, but you’re wrong. Hopefully, she will go down as among the most remarkably ignorant and stupid of all Supreme Court justices.

The moron Latino!

    alaskabob in reply to ernest1000. | January 7, 2022 at 3:19 pm

    Latinx! A step up from Latina.

    Her opinions only look rambling because interns probably write them. This is an excellent case to extend the power and (over)reach of the chaste and pure Federal Government from whom all blessings MUST flow.

    Wrapping every issue now into a “clear and present danger” leads to totalitarian technocratic rule. The Social Club of the United States is writing itself out of history.

      fscarn in reply to alaskabob. | January 7, 2022 at 3:27 pm

      The Wide Latina’s interns/clerks are likely all AA beneficiaries which pretty much assures that quality of legal research and writing will be bottom-of-the-barrel. The Wide Latina is the product of AA along with the president who nominated her.

To think these people hold such power over our lives. I’m embarrassed and ashamed for them. And very, very angry.

The justices should recuse themselves for being ABSOLUTELY UNQUALIFIED to handle this case.

    artichoke in reply to alohahola. | January 7, 2022 at 3:36 pm

    And in being unqualified, they should err on the side of freedom. Lately they’ve been erring on the side of the clown show.

Dodomayor wasn’t picked or her brains.

So how did this malignant Kamala Harris clone of a moron get past McConnell???

It would be a shame to lose the country because of lefty baloney among our unreviewable court of last resort. It would be their fault.

IneedAhaircut | January 7, 2022 at 3:50 pm

Is COVID even relevant here? The question is does the federal government (via OSHA and other agencies) have the authority to mandate an experimental vaccine of any type?

They can’t claim that this is some emergency, the government has been aware of COVID for more than 2 years. And if they are given a free pass because they claim it’s an emergency you’re opening up a huge can of worms. What next will be declared an emergency?

    Amen, this is the ONLY issue, it doesn’t matter how serious (or not) COVID is. Heart disease is serious (and kills more), OSHA and CMS do not mandate statins and ban cheeseburgers.

    Absolutely. The progs do what they always do, create some emergency, some existential threat and claim it trumps the constitution.

    The fauci/china virus isn’t any more of a threat than the regular old flu.

    iconotastic in reply to IneedAhaircut. | January 7, 2022 at 6:19 pm

    The only place in the 1970 OSHA Act that references immunization is here:

    “ Nothing in this or any other provision of this Act shall be deemed to authorize or require medical examination, immunization, or treatment for those who object thereto on religious grounds, except where such is necessary for the protection of the health or safety of others. ”

    I suppose the dishonest and corrupt believe this allows an immunization mandate by OSHA though.

    DaveGinOly in reply to IneedAhaircut. | January 8, 2022 at 1:54 pm

    Even if authorized by the Constitution, allowing that it is only sets the stage for abuse of the power in the future (even if it’s not being abused now). There is probably not an enumerated power that has not been abused.

Huge pile of theater…will this be on ESPN like the 2016 debates?

I guess “justice is blind” … to facts?

Women are, in most things, as dumb as rocks.

It’s not an essential thing but interference, call it emotional cognitive dissonance, that takes over when they attempt men’s jobs.

The job itself doesn’t have enough social complexity to hold their interest so they add social complexity to make it interesting to them.

    alohahola in reply to rhhardin. | January 7, 2022 at 5:24 pm

    Yeah, all of them—except for me.

    Valerie in reply to rhhardin. | January 7, 2022 at 11:52 pm

    Sorry you don’t know any smart women. Maybe they avoid you for a reason.

    herm2416 in reply to rhhardin. | January 8, 2022 at 12:59 am

    I’ll be certain to tell my Summa Cum Laude daughter you said this, oh, and the only non-math major in the history of her school who was a math tutor,

    Dumb rock.

      rhhardin in reply to herm2416. | January 8, 2022 at 6:55 am

      MIT mathematician Gian-Carlo Rota said that there are plenty of women with all the talent for math that you’d want, but they drop out at the highest level when they find they can’t do it without sustaining world-class illusions that here, at last, everything will be decided, and opt instead for some social life and its undecided complexity. From a book by VIcki Hearne, wondering about that it is with women and math and chess, where they ought to do as well as men. (Bandit, p.221)

It’s not ‘misinformation’, and I REALLY want conservatives to stop using that phrasing.



    alohahola in reply to Olinser. | January 7, 2022 at 5:25 pm

    They better not utter “anti-vaxx.”

    DaveGinOly in reply to Olinser. | January 8, 2022 at 2:03 pm

    That judgment balances on whether or not the person uttering the untruth realizes it’s an untruth. Judging that Sotomayor was lying presupposes that she’s intelligent enough to know the actual facts and made a conscious decision to spew falsehoods.

    I’m going with “stupid.” If she were smart, she’d keep her pie hole shut. What she has done has brought negative attention to herself before she has even rendered her decision, a decision that can now be rightly criticized for being motivated by/founded upon bogus facts.

Real American | January 7, 2022 at 5:07 pm

the legal question here is not “are vaccines good or effective?” It’s not even “is the OSHA rule good or effective.”

The narrow question is whether Congress granted OSHA the authority to do what it has done. The answer is obviously “NO” but the leftist judges are too detached from the Constitution to care. Their ignorance of the facts and law simply goes to show how much the facts and the law don’t actually matter to these people. Intentions are all that counts!

They believe government has the innate power to do “good” (defined by the laziest of college grievance studies majors) and thus whether or not Congress granted this authority is not the question because, of course, it has this authority.

    iconotastic in reply to Real American. | January 7, 2022 at 6:21 pm

    Does this indicate that Congress intended to allow OSHA to mandate immunization?

    “ Nothing in this or any other provision of this Act shall be deemed to authorize or require medical examination, immunization, or treatment for those who object thereto on religious grounds, except where such is necessary for the protection of the health or safety of others. ”

    There is no mention anywhere else in the Act regarding immunization or vaccination.

      DaveGinOly in reply to iconotastic. | January 8, 2022 at 2:13 pm

      It implies such, but I’d have to say “No.” If Congress intended to give OSHA the authority to mandate vaccinations, then there’d be a clause in the enabling legislation (a positive assertion of the authority), and the cited section would begin with “Except…”.

      Congress seems to have punted, allowing the ball to fall into a future in which a general federal authority to mandate vaccines is suddenly and conveniently found or discovered, and under which authority OSHA would the issue its mandates within the already-established limitations. Indeed, the cited section may have been Congress’ way of attempting to establish such authority without attracting negative attention from those who might have opposed the language.

I didn’t listen to the arguments, but I’m curious to know if anybody mentioned the fact that there have been thousands of deaths reported to VAERS as a result of the vaccines, and many more thousands of other serious side effects (e.g., myocarditis, blood clots, etc.).

Granted, the risk of death from the vaccines appears to be small, but it’s still a risk. And how can the government justify forcing people to literally risk their lives on an experimental drug therapy just to prevent them from possibly contracting a virus that has a better than 99% survival rate (in the alpha and delta versions) or even a 100% survival rate (in the omicron version)? Especially when we know that the shots don’t prevent transmission of the virus to other people?

The fact that they’re even considering letting the government use a clearly inapplicable OSHA law to impose this mandate is nuts, but the mandates themselves are completely indefensible as a matter of common sense.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Observer. | January 7, 2022 at 10:40 pm

    I’m pretty sure breathing doesn’t have a 100% survival rate…think a little bit about that one before you post it.

Sotomayor tried invoking the the commerce clause as justification for OSHA authority. That’s bizarre at best. Congress granted OSHA authority regarding mitigation of unique safety concerns that arise in a workplace. Covid isn’t unique to the workplace.

Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer love them some expansive federal agency powers. It’s like they never heard of federalism or the 10th amendment or seemingly of any limiting principle for fed agencies.

    iconotastic in reply to CommoChief. | January 7, 2022 at 6:25 pm

    What other justification is there for the OSHA Act than Commerce Clause? OSHA itself thinks it’s justification is via the Commerce Clause (because only Congress knows what the Commerce Clause covers apparently).

      CommoChief in reply to iconotastic. | January 7, 2022 at 7:00 pm

      Not the narrow sense but rather the more expensive sense like the reasoning in Wickard that in effect every activity touches interstate commerce with a side of disdain for pesky States who won’t meekly submit to overreach. Her reasoning seemed to be that any lack of explicit authority for OSHA should be presumed to be included via the tortured interpretation of the commerce clause in Wickard.

      The Constitution, IMO, is a document that establishes the limits of Federal power and whatever an agency seeks to accomplish outside an explicit grant of authority from Congress should be viewed so skeptically that the agency would need to convincingly overcome a presumption that they lack the authority.

      In this instance you have OSHA attempting to act to mitigate a risk that isn’t confined to the workplace nor even some workplaces. The risk is ubiquitous to daily life not limited to a, some or only the workplace.

      Breyer tried an analogy with fire safety which is politely; not helpful. States regulate the general risk of fire via building and fire codes. OSHA might add specific mitigation for fire in a munitions plant because it’s a specific and unique risk. Here OSHA wants the same mitigation in dissimilar workplaces. Under that logic OSHA could impose the specific mitigation rules for a munitions plant universally. So a tax preparation office would have to do what a munitions plant does in terms of employee training, PPE on hand, ventilation, fire suppression equipment…..That’s crazy town.

      Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are doing exactly what the Biden admin did when faced with the fact that no statutory authority exists to support their policy preferences; yell emergency, yell risk to public health, and choose an agency with a very tenuous connection to health and zero explicit authority as the standard bearer. Even for these three today was a farce.

        iconotastic in reply to CommoChief. | January 8, 2022 at 5:56 pm

        OSHA directly references Wickard and other decisions to justify their constitutionality. It does make me wonder just what isn’t covered by the Commerce Clause since every human action has some sort of economic impact. I suppose if Congress wanted to declare a One Child Law and limit families to only a single child they could under the Commerce Clause. After all, few things have as much economic impact as having and raising a child.

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | January 7, 2022 at 9:54 pm

    “Commerce clause” is one of the root passwords to the constitution.
    Not as efficient as “public health,” but it’s right up there.
    Did you know that the reason it’s a federal crime to bring a gun onto school grounds is because it affects interstate commerce? Really.

      CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | January 8, 2022 at 10:08 am

      Yeah it’s past time to work towards rolling back executive agencies creeping power aggregation by finding a case to gut Wickard.

        DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | January 8, 2022 at 2:29 pm

        Wickard needs to be overturned, better by an amendment than by a court ruling. The authors of the Constitution gave Congress exclusive legislative jurisdiction over interstate commerce not so much to grant Congress any particular authority, but to remove any such authority from the states in order to prevent the states from engaging in trade wars/unfair trading practices amongst themselves. Congress has authority to “regulate interstate commerce,” that should limit Congress to “making commerce regular.” The term “regulate,” when used in the Constitution, means “make orderly” or “make regular,” with the specific objective of promoting or enhancing something – like “commerce” or the efficiency of the “militia.” The power was not meant to give Congress the authority to interfere with, diminish, prevent, prohibit, or manage the manufacture, transportation/distribution, or sale of goods.

The Gentle Grizzly | January 7, 2022 at 5:40 pm

A big problem with the court in these times is: when Kagan and Sotomayor leave, there will be demands to fill “the latino/a* seat”; the two “women seats”, and in Kagan’s case, the one set aside for Jews if the ADL screams loud enough.

Nothing about qualifications; it will all be about heritage and plumbing.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to The Gentle Grizzly. | January 7, 2022 at 6:25 pm

    My “Latino/a*” asterisk explained: I will not use the term La-tinks.

    Nothing about qualifications; it will all be about heritage and plumbing

    Progressivism is and always has been a one-way ratchet.


    Sure there will. Just as there were when ‘Ginsberg’s seat’ was vacated and outside the deranged left no one really put any stock in that idea. IMO, any r who allows themselves to be talked into some BS about any vacant seat being reserved for any sex, race or ethnicity deserves to be abandoned.

    Um, there is no “set aside” seat for Jews. Though some rather distinguished justices have been Jewish. No, I would not include Kagan as a distinguished justice.

The Leftists on court are only their to stamp their Leftism on a ruling, it doesn’t have to follow law, it just has to sound plausible.

“Why is a human spewing a virus not like a machine spewing sparks?”

Bite my shiny metal ass, Sonia.

    Think38 in reply to henrybowman. | January 7, 2022 at 6:14 pm

    A machine spewing out sparks is a work-place issue because that is the only place we find such hypothetical machines. A human spewing a virus is a normal part of everyday life that has nothing to do with work-place conditions. OSHA gets to deal with work-place issues, not every-day life issues.

    kneeman in reply to henrybowman. | January 7, 2022 at 6:56 pm

    Sonia obviously has never seen or been in a metal fabricating shop or industrial setting.

Eastwood Ravine | January 7, 2022 at 6:12 pm

If the Democrats actually had the votes, they would pack SCOTUS with at least four more like-minded (ignorate) Justices.

Since when do individual Supreme Court Justices have the authority to sit their and spout the lies that are Democrat political talking points, overstepping their defined charter? Hearing these two morons regurgitate the falsehood’s of masks and vaccines mandates is reprehensible on steroids,

Last I checked I had a Constitutionally protected right to tell them to go screw themselves on such matters. And what happened to “my body, my right”? These two bench-sitting reprobates further proved the failing of the separate branches of government as set forth by The Founders. Special place in Hell…

What the hell is going on in SCOTUS? Does the Deep State have pictures and videos of these frauds<

Did the phrase “herd immunity” become outlawed, haven’t heard it mentioned in weeks / months.

Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer did more to rehabilitate Ted Cruz today than anyone could guess.

Missing Scalia and his incisive intellect more than ever.

I didn’t listen to it, but did anyone in the court room address the gross mis=statements made or did anyone in the courtroom question the basis for those statements?

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you some of the greatest legal minds of our time. We are DOOMED!

The US is tied to the Nuremberg Treaty signed after WWII.

Nuremberg Code
Article 6: Section 3
In no case should a collective agreement or the consent of a community leader or any other authority, substitute for an individuals informed consent.
Leaders should be aware that mandating masks on the citizens of a nation and preventing their access to food, healthcare, transport or education if they don’t comply, is a war crime. Mask or any other medical intervention must remain voluntary.

What has most bothered me is Biden’s insistence upon “protect[ing] the vaccinated from the unvaccinated,” and his articulation of that as his motivation. It’s based on an absurd, vile notion that those who have been vaccinated are somehow supremely virtuous, entitled to legal protections that irreversibly squash the liberty of those who have not submitted. Equal protection be damned! We like one group more than the filthy other, and must protect the submissive from the liberty-loving resistants!

That this kind of thinking might afflict a person with enough logical ability to pass the LSAT and get into law school is very troubling, but no longer surprising. That it might be found in the beliefs of persons occupying seats on the Supreme Court is horrifying.

“Protecting the vaccinated from the un-vaccinated” is a blatantly illegal objective, regardless of the effectiveness of the vaccines. Even “rational basis” analysis can’t save it. If the vaccines were fully effective, the mandates would be unnecessary. If they’re not effective, then the mandates don’t advance their purpose. At bottom, mandates to protect one group from the other are no different from mandating school segregation to protect the white kids from the black kids, or vice-versa.

The dim-witted, narcissistic and racially self-reverential Latina demonstrates her manifest idiocy each time she opens her fat mouth to bloviate like an unhinged and fanatical demagogue-politician. A person displaying such a glaring paucity of basic jurisprudential intelligence and such transparent political fanaticism never should have been appointed to the federal bench.

So much for the ‘wise latina’. Once again, she proves to be an idiot and doesn’t deserve to be on the SCOTUS.

I thought that the job of the SC was to determine if laws are constitutional not to determine public policy. They should be discussing if the constitution gives the federal government the power to force people to get vaccinated.

patrioticgrandma | January 9, 2022 at 11:07 am

Something that has been perplexing to me is the fact that there are already mandates for vaccinations for children to go to school. In order to go to public school, children must have certain vaccinations; it has been that way since my children were in school (I am 77 years old). Doesn’t that set a legal precedent for vaccine mandates? Precedents rule in the justice system, so why hasn’t there been something said about this long-standing practice?

    You’re right, and those mandates exist as a kind of uneasy, unresolved truce.

    The childhood vaccines were sold to my parents, and me, with the promise that they would be as safe as possible, namely less than 1 vaccine injury per million vaccines. This was true of the US vaccines, until the mRNA and DNA vaccines for COVID.

    Project Veritas has published the results of a study by the US government. It discloses that the government has broken faith with us, by promoting a solution to a lab leak that has a high injury rate, and is more dangerous than the leaked disease. Further, the US government has knowingly promoted less-useful treatments, namely monoclonal antibodies and the mRNA and DNA vaccines, while suppressing the known effective treatments against the underlying virus, namely hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

    I would add that the government has also failed to promote another easy, safe measure of public protection, namely Vitamin D supplements.

    So, the vaccine cases, if they go to the US Supreme Court, will have the factual background that the US government has not acted to promote the general welfare.

“Justice Breyer says that there were “750 million new covid cases yesterday”

There are 330 million people who live in America which means everyone apparently got covid twice in the last 24 hours.

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 7, 2022″

I just listened to the oral arguments on Youtube and Breyer did NOT say that. He say 750k. Nothing makes conservatives look like bigger jackasses than forwarding bad information. You know, like liberals. Please amend the article.

SeekingRationalThought | January 10, 2022 at 7:32 am

Sotamayor isn’t a wise latina, she is a hysterical wreck of a latina. And that’s the charitable take on her lies.

The Supreme Kangaroo Court.

Project Veritas could not be more timely. Here is the underlying document for the current video:


Gain-of-function research did occur at the Wuhan lab, and all of our subsequent information from Fauci, the CDC, the FDA, Pfizer and the media has been a pack of knowing lies.

Not only that, those unmitigated bastards have known from the get-go that hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are effective treatment for the underlying viruses, and that monoclonal antibodies and vaxxes are far less so.

The failure to give the American people the information needed to contain this disease, namely Vitamin D supplementation, hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, is malicious.

Further, the push for vaccine mandates is based on something besides promotion of the general welfare.

If this is an example of the IQ and mentality of the “best and brightest” we can find for the SCOTUS I fear for all of us!

It seems to me that the justices are discussing the need or merits of mandates, rather than the constitutionality of them.

If they want to work on policy matters, they should leave the Supreme Court, and run for elected office. Until then, they should do their damn jobs.