Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor. Yeah, she just said that.

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


next newest topic | next oldest topic
SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor. Yeah, she just said that. by sourmash
Started on: 01-12-2022 10:02 AM
Replies: 14 (208 views)
Last post by: rinselberg on 01-15-2022 02:02 AM
sourmash
Member
Posts: 4054
From:
Registered: Jul 2016


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-12-2022 10:02 AM Click Here to See the Profile for sourmashClick Here to Email sourmashSend a Private Message to sourmashEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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.”
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-12-2022 10:18 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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.

IP: Logged
sourmash
Member
Posts: 4054
From:
Registered: Jul 2016


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-12-2022 07:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for sourmashClick Here to Email sourmashSend a Private Message to sourmashEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Well, that's comforting. How have we survived until she came to save us?

Was she mstaking RGB for a man when she made the White male comparison?
IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 12373
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 209
Rate this member

Report this Post01-12-2022 09:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
"Socialist Sonia" wasn't appointed by Obama because of her alleged intellect.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-12-2022).]

IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 30547
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post01-12-2022 10:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by randye:

"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).]

IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 12373
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 209
Rate this member

Report this Post01-13-2022 07:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

https://www.yahoo.com/news/...esses-201140097.html

"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).]

IP: Logged
Fats
Member
Posts: 5098
From: Wheaton, Mo.
Registered: Jan 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 71
Rate this member

Report this Post01-13-2022 08:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FatsClick Here to Email FatsSend a Private Message to FatsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by randye:


https://www.yahoo.com/news/...esses-201140097.html

"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.
IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 12373
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 209
Rate this member

Report this Post01-13-2022 11:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Fats:


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).]

IP: Logged
Hudini
Member
Posts: 8592
From: Shanghai, China
Registered: Feb 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 163
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 05:33 AM Click Here to See the Profile for HudiniClick Here to Email HudiniSend a Private Message to HudiniEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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.
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 30547
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 07:57 AM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

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.

Rams
IP: Logged
randye
Member
Posts: 12373
From: New Port Richey, Florida
Registered: Mar 2006


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 209
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 06:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for randyeClick Here to visit randye's HomePageSend a Private Message to randyeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

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.

https://www.kff .org/coronav...20patient%20revenue.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-14-2022).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
blackrams
Member
Posts: 30547
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 06:13 PM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by randye:


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.

https://www.kff .org/coronav...20patient%20revenue.


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.

Rams
IP: Logged
Hudini
Member
Posts: 8592
From: Shanghai, China
Registered: Feb 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 163
Rate this member

Report this Post01-14-2022 08:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for HudiniClick Here to Email HudiniSend a Private Message to HudiniEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
It was something about the federal government can mandate how those patients are cared for including who can provide care under federal guidelines.
IP: Logged
blackrams
Member
Posts: 30547
From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 227
Rate this member

Report this Post01-15-2022 01:33 AM Click Here to See the Profile for blackramsClick Here to Email blackramsSend a Private Message to blackramsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

It was something about the federal government can mandate how those patients are cared for including who can provide care under federal guidelines.


I can see the court going that direction and using that as reasoning. I don't necessarily agree but then, I'm not one of those nine justices.

Rams
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 11393
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 135
Rate this member

Report this Post01-15-2022 02:02 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
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" :
  1. Increase the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9, to 13, to match the number (13) of U.S. Circuit Courts.
  2. Term limit the Supreme Court justices. That can be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment.

IP: Logged

next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock