PolitiFact slammed liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for claiming during oral arguments over the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate on Friday that more than 100,000 children were in “serious condition” due to the coronavirus.
“We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators” due to coronavirus, Sotomayor said.
PolitiFact rated the statement as “False,” writing in-part:
While the number of coronavirus-positive pediatric hospitalizations has risen with the spread of the omicron variant, Sotomayor’s number was way off.
At the time she made this comment, federal data showed that fewer than 5,000 coronavirus-positive children were in the hospital. In fact, fewer than 83,000 children have been hospitalized for COVID-19 — cumulatively — since August 2020.
There are over 100,000 cases among children, but scientists say that few of those are severe.
The US Supreme Court on Friday is considering a halt on Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates that affect more than 80 million Americans.
The highest court of the land began hearing oral arguments on two of Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates.
The Biden regime mandated all companies with 100+ employees to either test workers or prove they are vaccinated through a loophole issued by OSHA.
Biden also mandated healthcare workers at places receiving Medicaid and Medicare funding to prove they are vaccinated.
During oral arguments on Friday, Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor falsely claimed that over 100,000 children are in serious condition because of Covid.
“Many are on ventilators,” Sotomayor said.
This is a lie.
The CDC on Friday said 4 in 100,000 children admitted to hospitals are infected with Covid.
The children are in the hospital with Covid, not necessarily because of Covid and they are less likely to need ventilators:
More than four in 100,000 children aged 4 years or younger admitted to hospitals were infected with the coronavirus as of Jan. 1 — double the rate reported a month ago, and about three times the rate this time last year.
Children infected with the variant are still at much less risk of becoming severely ill than adults, and even young children seem less likely to need ventilators than those admitted during previous surges, experts said.
“We have not yet seen a signal that there is any increased severity in this age demographic,” Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the C.D.C.’s director, told reporters at a news briefing on Friday. She noted that similar worries about the Delta variant had proved to be unfounded.
“The Supreme Court should quickly issue a public correction to this incorrect information.” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to overturn a lower court ruling that justifies the use of excessive force by police on people who don’t understand police orders.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute and the Supreme Court Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law had asked that Oklahoma police be held responsible for brutalizing an African-American man who, despite complying with police orders during an arrest, was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days.
The petition in Edwards v. Harmon argued that Jeriel Edwards was not only deprived of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force but also his right to have a jury decide, based on video of his arrest, whether the officers’ actions were clearly unreasonable.
Affiliate attorneys Erin Glenn Busby, Lisa R. Eskow, and Michael F. Sturley of the University of Texas School of Law Supreme Court Clinic, and Andrea and Wyatt Worden of The Worden Law Firm assisted in the defense of Edwards’ Fourth Amendment rights.
“If you ask police what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with law enforcement, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.
“The problem is what to do when compliance is not enough. How can you maintain the illusion of freedom when daily, Americans are being shot, stripped, searched, choked, beaten and tasered by police for little more than daring to frown, smile, question, challenge an order or merely exist?”
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges.”—George Carlin
You think you’ve got rights? Think again.
All of those freedoms we cherish—the ones enshrined in the Constitution, the ones that affirm our right to free speech and assembly, due process, privacy, bodily integrity, the right to not have police seize our property without a warrant, or search and detain us without probable cause—amount to nothing when the government and its agents are allowed to disregard those prohibitions on government overreach at will.
This is the grim reality of life in the American police state.
In fact, in the face of the government’s ongoing power grabs, our so-called rights have been reduced to mere technicalities, privileges that can be granted and taken away, all with the general blessing of the courts.
This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Constitution being inexorably bled to death by the very institution (the judicial branch of government) that is supposed to be protecting it (and us) from government abuse.
Court pundits, fixated on a handful of politically charged cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term dealing with abortion, gun rights and COVID-19 mandates, have failed to recognize that the Supreme Court—and the courts in general—sold us out long ago.
With each passing day, it becomes increasingly clear that Americans can no longer rely on the courts to “take the government off the backs of the people,” in the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?
It ducks. Prevaricates. Remains silent. Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.
Lawyers representing a Colorado web designer who was slapped with a gag order in July that forced her to celebrate causes she believes are wrong filed a petition to appeal the case in the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.
Lorie Smith, the founder of 303 Creative, lost a 2-1 ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit which mandated that she create custom graphics and websites for LGBT customers despite messages that contradict her religious convictions.
“This case involves quintessential free speech and artistic freedom, which the 10th Circuit astonishingly and dangerously cast aside here,” Kristen Waggoner, the general counsel for the First Amendment legal foundation Alliance Defending Freedom, which has taken on Smith’s case, said in a press call with reporters. “The government shouldn’t weaponize the law to force a web designer to speak messages that violate her beliefs.”
The initial case was launched as a pre-enforcement challenge to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the same law weaponized to go after a Denver-area cake artist for refusal to design a custom cake for a same-sex wedding and, more recently, a gender transition. The law prohibits any business that offers public services from discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Smith challenged the law after she received an inquiry for a website for a same-sex wedding but did not respond to the order to avoid violating CADA.
The 10th Circuit rejected Smith’s case against CADA, writing that the law “permissibly compels [Lorie Smith’s] speech,” and concluded, “a faith that enriches society in one way might also damage society in [an]other.” Smith was also reprimanded with a gag order that keeps her from placing a note on her page about what sites would be consistent with her convictions.
“I have clients ranging from individuals to small business owners to nonprofit agencies. I have served and continue to serve all people, including those who identify LGBT,” Smith explained to reporters on Friday. “I simply object to being forced to pour my heart, my imagination, and talents into messages that violate my conscience.”
Waggoner said the legal team was optimistic that the Supreme Court would take up Smith’s case, arguing that the 10th Circuit’s decision was broad.
“I would be surprised if not all nine justice are deeply concerned about it,” said Waggoner, who went on to highlight the court’s prior rulings in defense of Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips.
In 1901 a deadly smallpox epidemic tore through the Northeast, prompting the Boston and Cambridge boards of health to order the vaccination of all residents. But some refused to get the shot, claiming the vaccine order violated their personal liberties under the Constitution.
One of those holdouts, a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson, took his anti-vaccine crusade all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s top justices issued a landmark 1905 ruling that legitimized the government’s authority to “reasonably” infringe upon personal freedoms during a public health crisis by issuing a fine to those who refused vaccination.
President Biden will sign an executive order Friday establishing a commission to study whether to add seats to the Supreme Court and other reform proposals, the White House announced, fulfilling a promise he made on the campaign trail.
The commission will be chaired by former White House counsel Bob Bauer and Cristina Rodriguez, a Yale law school professor and former deputy assistant attorney general, and largely consists of academics and former officials from across the political spectrum.
It will delve into the issue of potentially expanding the court — an idea that has been floated by some progressives but heavily criticized by Republicans — and which Biden himself has been cool to, though without explicitly ruling out the option.
“The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” the White House said in a release. “The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”
The White House said that the commission will hold public meetings to hear arguments from experts and interested parties. It will be required to complete a report on its work within 180 days of its first public meeting.