In a world brimming with dazzlingly useless and trite superlatives, it’s hard to energize a reader to feel the true gravity and absurdity of certain government happenings.
This is not one of those instances.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Justices heard (and bitterly engaged in) oral arguments in two cases (Biden v. Missouri and Becerra v. Louisiana) from lawyers representing numerous States and private organizations opposed to Joe Biden’s mandates over two vast swaths of the US population.
One Biden edict targets private businesses with 100 or more employees, commanding that they must see the employees take an mRNA gene vector injection or pay for expensive weekly “COVID tests”, and wear masks. The other is Biden’s order that any medical staff regulated by CMS (the Centers for Medicaid/Medicare Services) must be jabbed, no exceptions.
The leftists – and some “rightist” – Justices made such catastrophically ludicrous and ill-informed claims, many Americans wondered how in the world the court could continue hearing the case.
And those were just the claims about the virus and “pandemic” stats.
Most of the justifiably upset critics didn’t even mention that the errant statements about the stats were only a small portion of the unbelievably deranged positions many Justices had when it came to the clearly unjustified existence of the Labor Department, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal funding for the jabs, and much, much more.
Take serious pause and try to tell your neighbors about what happened in that chamber and via electronic means (Justice Sotomayor appeared electronically, as did two of the plaintiffs attorneys), because this is shocking and very, very important.
The most glaring factual bellyflop came from the infamous and fatuously anti-constitutional Stephen Breyer, who at about 43 minutes and 23 seconds into the C-Span coverage you can hear on their site, said in an exchange with Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers that:
I mean, you know… 750 million new cases yesterday, or close to that, is a lot.
This is how ill-prepared the man is to talk about the virus, and we haven’t even begun to discuss his feckless ignorance of – or callous disregard for – this vaunted U.S. Constitution.
As commentator Greg Price observed on Twitter:
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.
At an hour into the farce, Justice Elana Kagan offered this series of whoppers as she interpreted Flowers position on “spread” of the virus:
You basically said, well, we understand 18-29-year-olds, even though they’re not going to die or wind up with very serious injuries, that they can spread, you don’t, you don’t doubt that, that those people can SPREAD to other people who might be more vulnerable…
Which, of course, undercuts the entire argument about the jabs and why people take them, voluntarily.
The supposed premise is that the jabs protect people who want protection, so a “high-risk” person might want one, while a person at low risk might not see the tradeoff as beneficial and avoid it. But Kagan doesn’t seem to grasp the inherent concept: your jab is to protect you - just like your seatbelt is for you, not me.
Sadly, Flowers, whose performance was less than powerful when it came to logical argumentation, the U.S. Constitution, or Common Law, agreed, and so the increasingly interruptive Kagan shot in with the idea that if people are allowed to choose, OSHA loses its “power.” This literally are her words:
I’m sorry to cut you off, but I just wanted to state that, as, like, the premise. And then the question is. You said, well, the agency itself says that the danger is to other unvaccinated people, older people, immunocompromised people, whatever, um, and, you seem to be saying that because it’s to other unvaccinated people, kind of, they assumed the risk, and the agency’s power runs out. Is that what you’re saying? Because, I don’t know about that kind of doctrine, in the OSHA act or anyplace else in administrative law, that, because you can say that, you know, somebody would prefer not to be regulated, the agency loses its power.
Read that again, if you will.
Those are the words of a fascist.
Related: Even History Of OSHA Edicts Likely Won’t Support Biden’s Jab Mandate | MRCTV
Kagan is supposedly a master at “Administrative Law,” the bulk of which pertains to the vast mountain of federal and state statutes that politicians have imposed on private, voluntary exchange. Her position is not only that OSHA and its progenitor, the Labor Department, are constitutional, but that the very idea that a person might want to be left alone to take a particular risk is anti-American.
At about 46 minutes into the farce, Kagan actually claimed:
Counsel, those numbers show that Omicron is as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as Delta did.
All of which is completely false.
Not only have people like the angelic Anthony Fauci already stated that Omicron is not as deadly as Delta, as I have reported, there literally are no case or death stats that anyone, anywhere in the world, can say are reliable, because early on in this Kafkaesque nightmare of authoritarian insanity, the U.S. feds began using unreliable PCR tests to claim “cases” and the feds began to subsidize medical centers if they claimed that people died from COVID19 rather than simply with it, and even the “with” is uncertain because of the aforementioned unreliability of the PCR test as a diagnostic tool.
For goodness sake. As Twitter user Hap317 asked:
When did SCOTUS become CNN?
And then there’s the classic foray into fantasy land, from Associate Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who, as if reading from the same silly script as Kagan, claimed:
Omicron is as deadly as delta and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as Delta did. The numbers—look at the hospitalization rates going up. We have more infected people today than we did a year ago in January. We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.\
But, of course, she was wrong.
Syndicated columnist Phil Kerpen noted on Twitter:
This is just absolutely astonishing. ‘100,000 children in serious condition, per Sotomayor. Where do these people obtain their misinformation? The current national pediatric COVID census per HHS is 3,342. Many/most incidental.
There are not 100,000 children currently hospitalized with COVID-19. In fact, if you tallied up all the children admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 since August 2020, you would still not find 100,000 of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hospitals have admitted about 82,000 COVID-19 patients under the age of 18 in that time period. The current seven-day average for this age group is 766 hospitalizations.
As science writer Michael P. Senger noted on Twitter:
A partial list of COVID misinformation repeated by the US Supreme Court so far today: •100,000 children in critical care and on ventilators (Sotomayor) •Vaccine mandate would prevent 100% of US cases (Breyer) •COVID deaths are at an all-time high (Sotomayor) 1/
And he skewered more of their baseless claims:
•It’s “beyond settled” that vaccines and masks are best way to stop the spread (Kagan) •COVID vaccines stop transmission (Kagan) •Federal government can mandate vaccines using its police power (Sotomayor) •Hospitals are nearing capacity (Sotomayor) 2/
It goes on and on…
And these SCOTUS claims are just examples of the off-base nature of the stats some of these black-robed oligarchs spouted.
We already know they are out-of-touch from their oaths to uphold anything close to resembling the US Constitution and its limited so-called “powers.”
And this claxon-play of anti-constitutional ignorance showed us moments in which even supposedly “conservative” Justice Neil Gorsuch observed that he believed they all agree that Congress can do things that aren’t part of the original meaning of the Commerce clause, and it can create agencies to carry out these “regulations.” It saw Biden’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, claim that these “FDA approved and authorized vaccines” are effective and safe. When not one of them available in the U.S. is “approved” by the FDA, only given “Emergency Use Authorization,” which is a major legal distinction that actually pertains to the laws on mandates. Only Pfizer’s Comirnaty has been “approved” and that’s the Pfizer version available only in Europe, not the U.S. version, which the U.S. government recognizes as “legally distinct” from the Pfizer jab available in the U.S.
Kagan blithely claimed that “regulators” routinely determine risk for others. Sotomayor drew a false distinction about government edicts, pretending this is a “choice” left up to the employer and the employee, and Prelogar went so far as to openly say the government had to look at “‘best practices’ and IMPOSE THEM…”
Mussolini would be delighted.
But those who believe in freedom, or, at least, the so-called “constitutional protections” against government attacks, are justifiably alarmed.
To paraphrase what I wrote on Twitter Thursday:
“Even IF jab mandates were to have the consequentialist outcome of curing every person of everything, there is not a shred of relevance in that idea to the strict enumerated powers in their Constitution. The court members diving into the weeds of ‘stats’ haven't a clue.”
The only thing that is supposed to concern them is their oath to the U.S. Constitution.
Not one Justice in that Thursday farce showed even the remotest understanding of that set of so-called rules. You can listen to the whole thing, and hear for yourself.