Sotomayor Fact-Checked: Justice Gets Four Pinocchios for ‘Wildly Incorrect’ Covid Claim
quote
“Those numbers show that omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did. … We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators,” she said.
The reality is that there were less than 4600 kids in the hospital with any sort of covid pos test or condition and some only knew because a test said they were positive. But reality is a challenge for many people walking around us.
quote
Debunking the statement, the Post cited HHS data that there are about 5,000 children hospitalized in a pediatric bed as of January 8. These patients include kids with suspected Covid or a confirmed positive test result, and well as those in observation beds. Calling her claim “wildly incorrect,” the publication wrote that “Sotomayor’s number is at least 20 times higher than reality.”
Here's something else this dingbat once said:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
I was just reading (like yesterday or the day before) that significant errors in enumerations (like this one) and dates (dates that are in error, even by decades) have not been uncommon, even in written opinions from Supreme Court Justices. Even recently, and to this day. I don't recall that the article drew any distinction on this between the liberal ones and the conservative ones.
"Socialist Sonia" wasn't appointed by Obama because of her alleged intellect.
I have no idea of how true that is but, today I looked at her bio and to be honest, it's pretty impressive. This assumes it was all true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan but, her credentials are pretty good assuming it's true. Ya know if it's on the internet, there's no doubting it. But, maybe I'm too easily impressed.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 01-12-2022).]
"Socialist Sonya" predictably dissented in the 6-3 ruling.
"...the court’s three liberals were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in allowing a vaccine mandate on most health care workers to stand."
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-13-2022).]
"Socialist Sonya" predictably dissented in the 6-3 ruling.
"...the court’s three liberals were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh in allowing a vaccine mandate on [b][i]most health care workers to stand."[/i][/b]
It should have been a 9-0 ruling. And having it stand on Health Care workers is crazy.
It should have been a 9-0 ruling. And having it stand on Health Care workers is crazy.
I don't disagree, but I'll make 2 points:
1. I haven't yet seen what "most" healthcare workers means.
2. This issue will be likely re-litigated since the government cannot carve out "special classes" of citizens and mandate to a few what they don't or cannot mandate to all.
NOTE: That is not to say that individual business are not free to set their own rules or restrictions, (they are and IMO should be), e.g. I had to agree to take certain vaccinations in order to work in hospital operating rooms. Those vaxs were for MY protection not for anyone else, (there are some really nasty diseases that come out of some live people, and especially cadavers, when you cut them open). Those are not government rules or mandates, they are most often reasonable, conditions of employment or access for a private business.
The biggest and best news in this is that, for the most part:
BIDEN'S VAX MANDATE IS OFFICIALLY DEAD
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-14-2022).]
I heard the 2nd ruling was for health care facility workers who accept Medicare and Medicaid. The court said HHS can require certain things of those who accept federal money.
I heard the 2nd ruling was for health care facility workers who accept Medicare and Medicaid. The court said HHS can require certain things of those who accept federal money.
While it really doesn't matter what my opinion is, I called this just as SCOTUS called it. The President does not have constitutional authority as it pertains to this subject and OSHA but in the health care worker case, I believe the decision is tied to federal dollars. Very similar to the situation back in the 70s when the fed demanded that states lower the speed limit to 55 mph. The feds couldn't mandate the states to lower the speed limit but, they could restrict who got federal highway funds. Of course, all states went along with that requirement because they needed to get their money back from the feds. Kind of a loose tie in but, that's the main reason I think this case went the way it did.
I heard the 2nd ruling was for health care facility workers who accept Medicare and Medicaid. The court said HHS can require certain things of those who accept federal money.
If that is the legal rationale then it's very thin gruel and it will almost definitely be drawing another legal challenge....and the plaintiff(s) will prevail.
AFAIK Medicare / Medicaid dollars are "patient dependent", in other words the money is allocated to a hospital, clinic or healthcare provider on the basis of an individual patient's use of his / her entitlement. It's not a "bulk" government funding periodically issued to hospitals.
I won't know until I have a chance to read the entire SCOTUS ruling but I suspect that the carve out for healthcare workers has more to do with the CARES act funding than it does Medicare or Medicaid.
If I'm correct on that it means that it's also very "self limiting" to when the funds are exhausted by each healthcare provider.
If that is the legal rationale then it's very thin gruel and it will almost definitely be drawing another legal challenge....and the plaintiff(s) will prevail.
AFAIK Medicare / Medicaid dollars are "patient dependent", in other words the money is allocated to a hospital, clinic or healthcare provider on the basis of an individual patient's use of his / her entitlement. It's not a "bulk" government funding periodically issued to hospitals.
I won't know until I have a chance to read the entire SCOTUS ruling but I suspect that the carve out for healthcare workers has more to do with the CARES act funding than it does Medicare or Medicaid.
You may be correct, I haven't been able to actually read the findings but, what I feel certain of is that the decision is somehow linked to federal dollars and how it's spent and the federal government's demands/requirements.
Biden's panel or commission on the Supreme Court was a "bust". I don't even know how they tried to dress up whatever they produced in the way of a report.
I recommend the "old one-two" :
Increase the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9, to 13, to match the number (13) of U.S. Circuit Courts.
Term limit the Supreme Court justices. That can be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment.
