If it was not our own country the Democrats are destroying, the whole thing would be a hoot.
Democrats
went into full panic mode over the recent Supreme Court decision giving
partial immunity to President Trump. The screeching started immediately
that if Donald Trump returns to the presidency he could order the SEAL
teams to kill people arbitrarily. Apparently, Biden is not the only one
suffering from cognitive loss.
Supreme Court Justices Sonia
Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown are the ones who said that Trump would have
people killed. Both judges, not known for their intellect, seem to have
forgotten that Obama is the one who killed an American. And President
Joe Biden let thirteen Marines die in Afghanistan. Hillary let four
people die in Benghazi.
In September 2011 President Barack Obama
ordered the drone killing of American-born Anwar
Nasser Abdulla
al-Awlaki in Al Jawf Governate, Yemen. A previous attempt failed. Why
was the Muslim community here not protesting and burning buildings? Was
it because they understood that Obama was a Muslim traveler and was
forgiven for killing one of their own?
The
DOJ released a memorandum three years later that described the killing
as a lawful act of war. Civil liberty advocates called it an
“extrajudicial execution.” Obama actually had an American killed and
Sotomayor, who had been on the SC bench since 2009, didn’t care then.
Anwar
al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1971. His family,
including his father who was a Fulbright Scholar, returned to Yemen when
Anwar was seven years old. He returned in 1991 to study civil
engineering at Colorado State University and graduated in 1994. He left
the U.S. in 2002 for the UK and returned to Yemen two years later. He
was involved with al-Qaeda and spent time in prison there.
While
in Yemen, al-Awlaki had a relationship with U.S. Army Major and
psychiatrist Nidal Hassan. Hassan attended the funeral of al-Awaki’s
mother and the two emailed each other at least 18 times between Dec.
2008 and June 2009. Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer said: "E-mailing a
known al-Qaeda sympathizer should have set off alarm bells. Even if he
was exchanging recipes, the bureau should have put out an alert.”
Hassan,
a practicing Muslim, was stationed at Fort Hood, Killeen, Texas. On
November 5, 2009, he fatally shot thirteen people and wounded thirty
more. He was yelling “Allah Akbar” as he gunned down his unarmed
victims.
From The Hill (04/21/15)
“Obama, having repeatedly assured us Islam—by definition—is a peaceful
religion, reasoned one conducting such a violent attack cannot be
Muslim. Thus, it was not Islamic ideology but a hostile workplace that
led to the attack.”
Years later the dead and wounded were
awarded Purple Hearts but denied financial benefits because of Obama’s
mandate of workplace violence.
On August 28, 2013 Hassan was
sentenced to death after a trial that cost $5 million. One armed person,
with one round in a gun in 2009, could have stopped Hassan, saved lives
and $5 million.
One hundred and forty-eight victims and family
members of the attack filed a lawsuit on November 5, 2012, against the
government, Hassan and his estate.
January 23, 2019 (Reuters)
- “A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has dismissed wrongful death
claims against senior U.S. government officials and civilian employees
brought by victims of the 2009 mass shooting at the Fort Hood military
base in Killeen, Texas, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30
others.
“U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said on
Tuesday night she lacked jurisdiction over claims by roughly 150
victims and family members against the secretary of defense, secretary
of the army and FBI director because the United States was not also
named as a defendant.”
Politics like we have never seen. Recommend
Susan’s Newsletter to your friends. Also, there's a video here I can't reproduce. Go to the original to view it.
Wisdom is the application of knowledge and understanding.
By Rich Kozlovich
Over the years I've written and posted a lot about "the wise Latina!", Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, and none of it's been nice. It has been all factual however, and the hits just keep on coming.
It’s tough being a wise
Latina on the United States Supreme Court, especially when you must
share your position with people who believe that their job is to
interpret the Constitution and laws as written, not as you wish they
were. That was Sotomayor’s message when she received an award at
Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute yesterday.
She's a typical leftist making up her own set of facts, and she cries when the court just won't go along with her version of the Constitution. Cries mind you, because the court just won't abandon their reasoned views to a justice who's integrity, intelligence, and legal understanding is seriously open to question. Imagine that!
This is what happens when you place people on the Supreme Court who
are unqualified at a very fundamental level. Sotomayor is there, not
because she has the brain wattage, wisdom, and knowledge, but because
she checks an identity politics box and toes the line. She is an
ideologue first and a justice last.
Wisdom
is the application of knowledge and understanding, and if that's true, and it is, we know her knowledge is either limited or inaccurate, meaning her understanding is
flawed. Ergo, this “wise Latina” utterly lacks wisdom.
I
will also state, for those who’ve read the history of the Supreme Court,
this isn’t anything new. In days past, there were appointees who
everyone thought or knew was insane, and non partisanship has always been an elusive concept for the court.
The big difference is
back then, the Congress understood the Constitution gave them the power
to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, there weren’t as
many federal judges, and there weren’t nearly as many laws, regulations,
or agencies, which has been fertile ground for the abusive and idiotic
rulings coming out of the courts, as a result, “The Supreme Court has broken through the firewalls constructed by the framers to limit judicial power.”
But Sotomayor is no longer
the dimmest bulb on the court. Now we have Ketanji Brown Jackson, so
Sotomayor is only second from the bottom. But on their best days, both
are dim flickering light bulbs as a result of their low wattage intellects.
Too bad the Senate didn't ask Jackson if she was a woman, and if she said she was, they should have then asked her how does she know? The stupidity of these mental midgets is mind boggling.
Conclusion:
Sotomayor is not a "wise Latina".
Sotomayor is either ignorant of the law, or chooses to ignore the law.
Sotomayor's logic is flawed
Sotomayor's conclusions are stupid.
Sotomayor's views are based on falsehoods
Sotomayor is unfit to be a judge on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
The only bench Sotomayor should be allowed to sit on is a park bench, and I put Jackson and Kagan in that same category, and there are four more "so-called conservative justices" who are marginal, with the Chief Justice leading the pack.
More evidence of the need for a 28th Amendment to create term limits for the federal judiciary. If the Constitution
is going to really be the document that governs government, and is the real and legitimate law
of the land, it's in serious need of reinforcements. It’s time for a 28th
Amendment that would impose strict term and age limits on the federal
judiciary.
Politicians
lie so frequently that the practice is seldom newsworthy. Even
staggering, in-your-face lies of epic consequence, such as “If you like
your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” rarely result in dire
consequences for the individual making the bogus claims. Hypocrisy is a
bit different and – in sufficient doses – can prove fatal to candidates,
campaigns, and ideas. The recent revelations
regarding US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s book sales are a
heaping helping and could end the progressives’ war on Clarence Thomas.
“I literally prepped the boxes and had my aides count the books
before signing. I even have a spreadsheet noting how many books were
signed each day.” That is Court employee and Sotomayor’s taxpayer-funded
assistant Anh Le, speaking of her and her colleagues’ work schedule.
There was no reporting on whether workers comp claims shot up after
their pressed service as an ad-hoc book warehouse team. Imagine the
headlines if Justice Thomas had a court employee mow his lawn or wash
his car. Most independent bookstores carry an average of 7,000 books in
inventory. Supreme Court employees moved over 11,000 books for Sotomayor
and her publisher.
The ever-expanding campaign against Clarence
Thomas being played out in the pages of the Fourth Estate could be
rendered counter-productive unless the media is willing to sacrifice
Sotomayor on a similar ethical altar.
Good for the Goose?
David
Rand is a psychology professor at Yale who researched hypocrisy. “[W]e
found that people viewed hypocrites as dishonest — more dishonest, in
fact, than people who uttered outright falsehoods.” And “Remarkably,
hypocrites were rated as less trustworthy, less likable and less morally
upright than those who openly lied.” That’s a powerful force. The
greater the gulf between professed virtue and revealed sin determines
the degree of hypocrisy.
We
learn from the AP report that Sotomayor benefits directly from book
sales, and handsomely so. She came to the Court an unpublished author
but received, within a year, a $3.1 million advance for her first
effort. That was a memoir. Now she writes children’s books and has
earned royalties for sales of at least $400,000 since 2019.
Should
Sotomayor face the same level of scrutiny as Thomas? And would such
scrutiny highlight the partisan hypocrisy of a media so determined to go
to bat for the political left? As Noam Chomsky once noted, “For the
powerful, crimes are those that others commit.”
A Surprising Take
Thomas
has served on the Court for almost 32 years, over twice as long as his
sister Justice. He has spoken glowingly about the collegiality of the
Court since joining. In 2022 Justice Sotomayor referenced her
relationship with Thomas directly. She believed the two were probably
the Justices who disagreed the most in court opinions but that they
“share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them.”
She said:
Justice Thomas is the one Justice in the
building that literally knows every employee’s name, and not only does
he know their names, he remembers their family’s names and histories.
He
is the first one who will go up to someone when you’re walking with him
and say, ‘Is your son okay? How’s your daughter doing in college?’ He’s
the first one that, when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in
Florida. He is a man who cares deeply about the Court as an institution
and about people.
Justice Sotomayor offered the
anecdote with kind regard, which is no small matter. De-humanizing
Thomas is right out of the progressive handbook. Literally. Saul Alinsky, a birthing person for the progressive movement and Hillary Clinton’s hero, wrote the widely cited Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” For
Sotomayor to put Thomas’ humanity on record is no small matter.
The Risk of Hypocrisy
Is all that enough to stop the war on Thomas? When Republicans started attacking President Biden as a hypocrite, the New York Times recognized the danger and published a hit piece
against the notion. An editorial board member wrote, “[H]ypocrisy
provides a neat, clean, easy to grasp, nonpartisan rubric by which to
pass judgment on public officials.” And, “[w]ith hypocrisy, you don’t
need to get into the policy weeds or take a stand that could be
considered ideologically slanted.”
Expect progressive shot-callers
who spend millions on attacks to look for a better return on
investment. The big box media may well be shamed into moderating its
takes on future anti-Thomas revelations or risk derailing one of the
most left-leaning darlings of the Supreme Court and its own
already-sullied reputation in the process. Fewer news outlets will be
interested in running a story on rumors Virginia and Clarence Thomas did
not license their Labrador retrievers in the mid-’90s. And all the
people said, “Amen!”
When I read these decisions coming down from SCOTUS I often wonder how many remember when Sotomayor was nominated to the court where she was challenged at the judiciary committee hearing about this comment she made "at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley. The conference's theme was: Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation" saying:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
So, in my view it seems to me the only conclusion one can come away with from that is being Latina made her more wise that whites, blacks, and Asians? That really didn't float all that well and she had to backtrack later saying:
“I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.”
Please note, she didn't apologize. She didn't say she didn't really mean it. She didn't say that was wrong. And in no way did she back away from that view. What she said in effect was, all of you dummies just don't get it.
Well, I've kept a lot of files on Sotomayor, who thought San Francisco's new far-left DA, Chesa Boudin, who turned San Francisco into a hell hole was just fine. Her high reversal rate alone should have demonstrated her abject lack of "wisdom", and certainly her lack of judicial understanding, and what should have been an insight she was an activist, not a judge. Her open anti-Trump activism as a political hack was clearly obvious when she openly criticized the other members of the court "of putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump
administration by siding more times than not in his favor."
Years ago I read WHORES: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment by
Larry Klayman. I find him a bit odd, but one thing came out clear as a
bell in this book, and time has been showing this to be true, the federal judiciary
is filled with political hacks. Sotomayor epitomizes that declaration.
A wise Latina? She claims there's no real definition for wise,
well, again she's wrong. Wisdom is the practical application of
knowledge and understanding. Wise decisions aren't based on the
philosophical flavor of the day, especially leftist flavor's of the day ,
since they're as changeable as the latest ladies fashion.
Wisdom is based on truth. Truth is the sublime convergence of
history and reality. Everything were told has a historical foundation
and context. Everything we're told should bear some resemblance to what
we see going on in reality. If what's presented to us fails in either
of those categories, it's wrong. Saying it's right may be politically
comfortable, but it isn't wisdom. One more thought. Who besides Sotomayor ever said she was wise? And in point of fact, no one!
Does Supreme Court
'wise Latina' Justice Sonia Sotomayor have an ongoing feud with her
equally leftist colleague, Justice Elena Kagan?.........Most of the
Court, including Sotomayor, ruled that based on the copyright terms of
use of the photograph..........In
their majority ruling, they went through all the rules of fair use.......Kagan (and Chief Justice John Roberts in a
simple concurrence) didn't agree.........
Apparently Kagan got publicly snotty, and Sotomayor got publicly snotty right back at her, which usually is not done by SCOTUS members. However Showalter went on to say:
But that
one of the players here was the loosely wrapped Sotomayor, whom the
late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reportedly couldn't stand based on her
low legal brainpower, shouldn't surprise anyone. Now, one thing
that may have been going on here is that Kagan pretty well told the rest
of the Court they were a bunch of art philistines in her ruling. Which must have stuck in low-class Sotomayor's craw............
So, RBG thought the Wise Latina was a dummy? Wow! I'm almost going to break out in hives giving her a high five on that, and I wonder at what's wrong with Kagan's mind, who I also think is dumb as dirt.
But there's possibly a larger issue involved here. Lack of trust among the members. Is there a lack of trust among the members of the court because of leaking the abortion decision? A leak that caused very real concern over the safety of the members of this court! Safety issues for which the Democrats are directly responsible.
The thing I really took away from this is how brain dead can these people be if they can get this worked up over such a small issue? How can they possibly control themselves in dealing with larger, and far more important issues?
Wisdom and leftism are diametrically opposing values. That's history, and that history is incontestable, and it's time for age and term limits on the federal judiciary, which is rampant with far left out of control incompetent lunatics.
There’s one certainty in politics. If a Democrat is accusing a Republican
of doing something, it is the Democrat who is inevitably actually doing it. That dynamic played out again Wednesday after a major revelation about
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor called into question all the recent
left-wing attacks on Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. For the last few weeks, a coordinated assault on the court’s
conservatives has taken place, with numerous press outlets releasing reports
supposedly detailing corruption.
In reality, essentially everything charged
amounted to nothing legally or ethically. In the case of Thomas, he was not
required to report the free travel he received
from long-time friend Harlan Crow. A secondary charge that Thomas misreported
income also turned out to be nothing more than a simple technical mistake
involving two entities with nearly identical names.
As for Neil Gorsuch, he was accused of selling land to the executive of a
law firm that had business before the Supreme Court. Once again reality got in the way of
the far-left hysteria, though, after it was revealed that Gorsuch sold the
property just nine days after being confirmed and that the person he
sold it to had no business at all before the court at the time.
You get the idea. These attacks have been absolutely ridiculous, but that
didn’t stop Senate Democrats from calling a hearing to
furiously wag their fingers. Well, they are going to have to call another
hearing because it’s been revealed that Sotomayor took $3.6 million from a book
company that did have business before the court at the time (The Daily Wire). Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to recuse herself
from multiple copyright infringement cases involving book publisher Penguin
Random House despite having been paid millions by the firm for her books,
making it by far her largest source of income, records show.........To Read More........
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about vaccine
requirements in New York City that was once denied by liberal US Supreme
Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. This could lead to a huge ruling about
how much power state and local governments have, the Conservative Brief reported. Last month, Sotomayor denied a request
by New York City police detective Anthony Marciano to overturn the
city’s unconstitutional mandate that all municipal workers get the
Covid-19 jab. Sotomayor denied Officer Anthony Marciano’s emergency request without
comment, and she did not ask the city to file a brief in response. Marciano resubmitted the same petition to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas..
Looks like Sotomayor got overruled - and quite rightly so!Sotomayor, who styled herself as a "wise Latina", which would have drawn outrage from the left if any white man or woman and the nerve to style themself as so wise they deserved to be on the Supreme Court, and has got to be running high on the list of SCOTUS jurists that are either dumb, incompetent, corrupt or blatantly partisan, or all four.
But she wouldn't appear anywhere on a list of "wise" jurists. Her inadequacy may only be exceeded by Ketanji Brown Jackson, who when she was a SCOTUS candidate the Senate questioned her qualifications the left became outraged. Outraged the Senate had the temerity to question her? Now they didn't personally attack her as the Democrats did to Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and the best jurist to have been seated on the Court in my lifetime, Clearance Thomas, they merely questioned the qualifications of a potential jurist. A potential jurist who couldn't define what a woman is. Imagine that!
Of the three branches of the U.S. federal government, the Supreme Court has traditionally received the most respect. And while all three branches have lost some level of confidence among the American public in recent years, it is the Supreme Court that has faced the most precipitous decline, and now find themselves in rare territory: defending their own legitimacy.
According to Gallup polling,
25% percent of U.S. adults in 2022 say they have "a great deal" or
"quite a lot" of confidence in SCOTUS, down from 36% a year ago and five
percentage points lower than the previous record low recorded in 2014.
Many court-watchers cite a recent spate of controversial decisions as contributing to the drop.
Is this lack of integrity and competence anything new for SCOTUS? No, as the author points out in the 19th century it was understood that court appointees were blatantly partisan, but he also points out court never had the power to alter the social structure of America then as it does now, and it's time to end this unconstitutional judicial tyranny with term limits. It's time for a 28th Amendment.
Editor's Note: This was originally published on January 11, 2022 but in light of recent events I think it appropriate to republish. RK
In Greek mythology Hercules was tasked with cleaning the Augean Stables,
which he did by diverting two rivers into the stables, thus washing out
all the manure. The nation is in need of a Herculean effort to wash
out the stench of corruption in the nation's federal judiciary, which is
filled with political hacks, unfortunately that includes the Supreme
Court of the United States, and nothing has exposed this stench like the
current case before them involving OSHA and the Biden administration's
efforts to by pass the Constitution with their vaccination mandates.
Life
is about patterns and cycles, and in order to see those patterns and
understand the cycles, we need to understand the learning curve is huge
when writing about any issue if you aren't trained in the specific field
of expertise you're exploring and writing about.
When I started
writing twenty years ago it was solely in defense of the pest control
industry and the tools we use, and I wanted to be absolutely accurate. I
was prepared to follow the facts wherever they may lead. What I found
was a wide range of opinions, extreme opposite opinions. At the
beginning you have to wade through a lot of information from all sides
of these issues, and a ton of misinformation, logical fallacies, data
manipulation, false studies, etc., before you find the right answers and
patterns of thought. Once you've found who to trust, who to believe,
what information is provable and what is not you're finally left with
those who are reliable and truthful, and those who practice outright
lying.
Let's start with Sotomayor, who stated during her Senate hearings for her seat on the Supreme Court of the United States:
"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.”
Wisdom
is the application of knowledge and understanding, so I wonder who is
the "wise Latina" about whom she references? Because it isn't her.
She's clearly ignorant about much of which she speaks, and this case
brings that ignorance of the facts, and her either ignorance of the law
or her disdain for the law to the fore.
It’s been clear for a while now that you have five conservative
Supreme Court justices, one left-leaning squish, two liberals, and one
absolute nutjob. That’s not to say that Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan
aren’t also incredibly terrible at their jobs, but it is to say that Sonia Sotomayor is in a class by herself.
Apparently
she's astonished...astonished mind you....that anyone would stand
against these mandates because she knows....absolutely knows....there
are "100,000
children in serious condition", then asking "Where do these people
obtain their misinformation?
Unfortunately,
her 100,000 child in crisis statistic is a lie, and she's the source of
that misinformation. The actual number, according to the he United States Department of Health and Human Services, the
number is 3,342. The reality is children are not significantly at risk
from this variety of coronavirus, Covid-19, and they are not filling
our hospitals.
She
continues as the source of misinformation claiming that vaccinated
people can't transmit the virus, which is known to be blatantly false,
and has been known for some time, and the omicron variant is "as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did." This is false. She
then stated, "We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity" with
many children are now on ventilators as a result of this virus and we're
"now having deaths at an unprecedented amount". Again, false.
On Jan. 13, 2021, the seven-day average of deaths was 3,421, and the number of deaths on that day was 4,048,according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That’s the peak for the COVID-19 pandemic. As of Jan. 7, the day
Sotomayor spoke, the seven-day average was 1,500 deaths, with the total
reaching 2,230 that day. Since then, the seven-day average has risen
slightly, to 1,552 on Jan. 9.
While there many be a lot of
children on ventilators across the nation - the question is - are they
on ventilators because of this virus, and there's not one iota of
evidence they are, and since children are "extremely unlikely" to be
infected with this virus it's clear they're "extremely unlikely" to be
on ventilators because of this virus. She also claimed OSHA has the
regulatory authority to impose these mandates and in effect a "federal
police power."
So, it seems clear she's either stunningly
ignorant or she lies. Either way, that makes her an incompetent and
corrupt myrmidon jurist of the left, and certainly not the brightest
pebble in the brook.
So let's go
back to her "wise Latina" comment. If
any conservative or any color, male or female, or just a white male,
said anything that arrogant the media would have crucified them, and now
we know six things.
She's not that "wise Latina".
She clearly is either ignorant of the law, or chooses to ignore the law.
Her logic is flawed
Her conclusions are stupid.
Her views are based on falsehoods
She's unfit to be a judge on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
If
there ever was a member of the federal judiciary that overwhelmingly
demonstrates term limits should be imposed on the them via a
Constitutional amendment, she's the one.
Let's deal with Justices Breyer and Kagan,
but I don't have a cartoon for them that's appropriate, and this one is so rich I just had
to use it.
CLAIM: Vaccine mandates and masks would prevent all of the 750,000 daily new coronavirus cases in the current surge.
VERDICT: PARTLY FALSE. While vaccines and masks would prevent many cases, they do not prevent all transmission.
Actually, that statement is almost always false. "Masks (especially cloth masks) are nearly useless in stopping or even slowing the
spread of the Wuhan Virus". But no matter, the issue here is his claim
there are 750,000 daily new coronavirus cases in the current surge, or
did he say 750,000,000 as some have reported, which is of course
impossible since there's only about 330,000,000 people in America, which
means each and every one of them had to have contracted this disease
twice. But either way, either number is false.
Justice
Breyer also claimed hospitals are full to the maximum as a result of this
virus with people who are unvaccinated. That's false.
The nation's hospitals are
are not full of Wuhan Virus patients, and in point of fact, they're not full of patients in general. According to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), only about 17
percent of all the patients in hospitals are Covid-19 patients, and it's
clear with his wide ranging claim of anywhere between sixty percent and
ninety percent capacity, he don's t have a clue what the number really
is. In short, he's making it up, aka, lying.
Justice Kagan, not to be outdone by her nutty companions, is claiming this virus is:
"the greatest public health danger that this
country has faced in the last century." "More and more
people are dying every day. More and more people are getting sick every
day. I don't mean to be dramatic here. I'm just sort of stating
facts."
Did she say facts? Claiming its just the facts,
presupposes she's telling the truth, or is it as one writer says
"telling the truth", "is really just a leftist's way of saying, "I'm
feeding
you a crock of crap!"'
Let's try and get this right once and for all.
First, these aren't legitimate vaccines as have been defined for
decades, that being a vaccine had to do two things. Prevent infection
and prevent transmission, and none of these "vaccines" do either, so
they changed the definition to accommodate calling these drugs vaccines,
which are experimental drugs since it normally takes ten to twelve
years to go through all of the FDA's testing procedures. In point of fact, they don't work, including Pfizers drug. Pfizer CEO: Our Vaccines Offer ‘Limited, If Any Protection, otherwise there wouldn't be necessary to have an unending need for boosters Then there's the issue of bad reactions.
It is my view that at some point the long term consequences of these
forced vaccinations is going to be this generation's Thalidomide
crisis.
If
Sotomayor is the number one demonstration of why we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution for term limits for the federal judiciary, both Breyer and Kagan both run a close second
And
to answer Sotomayor's question about where all the misinformation comes
from. It comes from you, your cohorts on the court, the corrupt media
and the Biden administration's Deep Staters.
In Greek mythology Hercules was tasked with cleaning the Augean Stables,
which he did by diverting two rivers into the stables, thus washing out
all the manure. The nation is in need of a Herculean effort to wash
out the stench of corruption in the nation's federal judiciary, which is
filled with political hacks, unfortunately that includes the Supreme
Court of the United States, and nothing has exposed this stench like the
current case before them involving OSHA and the Biden administration's
efforts to by pass the Constitution with their vaccination mandates.
Life is about patterns and cycles, and in order to see those patterns and understand the cycles, we need to understand the learning curve is huge when writing about any issue if you aren't trained in the specific field of expertise you're exploring and writing about.
When I started writing twenty years ago it was solely in defense of the pest control industry and the tools we use, and I wanted to be absolutely accurate. I was prepared to follow the facts wherever they may lead. What I found was a wide range of opinions, extreme opposite opinions. At the beginning you have to wade through a lot of information from all sides of these issues, and a ton of misinformation, logical fallacies, data manipulation, false studies, etc., before you find the right answers and patterns of thought. Once you've found who to trust, who to believe, what information is provable and what is not you're finally left with those who are reliable and truthful, and those who practice outright lying.
Let's start with Sotomayor, who stated during her Senate hearings for her seat on the Supreme Court of the United States:
"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.”
Wisdom is the application of knowledge and understanding, so I wonder who is the "wise Latina" about whom she references? Because it isn't her. She's clearly ignorant about much of which she speaks, and this case brings that ignorance of the facts, and her either ignorance of the law or her disdain for the law to the fore.
It’s been clear for a while now that you have five conservative
Supreme Court justices, one left-leaning squish, two liberals, and one
absolute nutjob. That’s not to say that Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan
aren’t also incredibly terrible at their jobs, but it is to say that Sonia Sotomayor is in a class by herself.
Apparently she's astonished...astonished mind you....that anyone would stand against these mandates because she knows....absolutely knows....there are "100,000
children in serious condition", then asking "Where do these people
obtain their misinformation?
Unfortunately, her 100,000 child in crisis statistic is a lie, and she's the source of that misinformation. The actual number, according to the he United States Department of Health and Human Services, the number is 3,342. The reality is children are not significantly at risk from this variety of coronavirus, Covid-19, and they are not filling our hospitals.
She continues as the source of misinformation claiming that vaccinated people can't transmit the virus, which is known to be blatantly false, and has been known for some time, and the omicron variant is "as deadly and causes as much serious disease in the unvaccinated as delta did." This is false. She then stated, "We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity" with many children are now on ventilators as a result of this virus and we're "now having deaths at an unprecedented amount". Again, false.
On Jan. 13, 2021, the seven-day average of deaths was 3,421, and the number of deaths on that day was 4,048,according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
That’s the peak for the COVID-19 pandemic. As of Jan. 7, the day
Sotomayor spoke, the seven-day average was 1,500 deaths, with the total
reaching 2,230 that day. Since then, the seven-day average has risen
slightly, to 1,552 on Jan. 9.
While there many be a lot of children on ventilators across the nation - the question is - are they on ventilators because of this virus, and there's not one iota of evidence they are, and since children are "extremely unlikely" to be infected with this virus it's clear they're "extremely unlikely" to be on ventilators because of this virus. She also claimed OSHA has the regulatory authority to impose these mandates and in effect a "federal police power."
So, it seems clear she's either stunningly ignorant or she lies. Either way, that makes her an incompetent and corrupt myrmidon jurist of the left, and certainly not the brightest pebble in the brook.
So let's go back to her "wise Latina" comment. If
any conservative or any color, male or female, or just a white male,
said anything that arrogant the media would have crucified them, and now
we know six things.
She's not that "wise Latina".
She clearly is either ignorant of the law, or chooses to ignore the law.
Her logic is flawed
Her conclusions are stupid.
Her views are based on falsehoods
She's unfit to be a judge on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
If
there ever was a member of the federal judiciary that overwhelmingly
demonstrates term limits should be imposed on the them via a
Constitutional amendment, she's the one.
Let's deal with Justices Breyer and Kagan,
but I don't have a cartoon for them that's appropriate, and this one is so rich I just had
to use it.
CLAIM: Vaccine mandates and masks would prevent all of the 750,000 daily new coronavirus cases in the current surge.
VERDICT: PARTLY FALSE. While vaccines and masks would prevent many cases, they do not prevent all transmission.
Actually, that statement is almost always false. "Masks (especially cloth masks) are nearly useless in stopping or even slowing the
spread of the Wuhan Virus". But no matter, the issue here is his claim
there are 750,000 daily new coronavirus cases in the current surge, or did he say 750,000,000 as some have reported, which is of course impossible since there's only about 330,000,000 people in America, which means each and every one of them had to have contracted this disease twice. But either way, either number is false.
Justice
Breyer also claimed hospitals are full to the maximum as a result of this
virus with people who are unvaccinated. That's false.
The nation's hospitals are are not full of Wuhan Virus patients, and in point of fact, they're not full of patients in general. According to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), only about 17
percent of all the patients in hospitals are Covid-19 patients, and it's
clear with his wide ranging claim of anywhere between sixty percent and
ninety percent capacity, he don's t have a clue what the number really
is. In short, he's making it up, aka, lying.
Justice Kagan, not to be outdone by her nutty companions, is claiming this virus is:
"the greatest public health danger that this
country has faced in the last century." "More and more
people are dying every day. More and more people are getting sick every
day. I don't mean to be dramatic here. I'm just sort of stating
facts."
Did she say facts? Claiming its just the facts, presupposes she's telling the truth, or is it as one writer says "telling the truth", "is really just a leftist's way of saying, "I'm feeding
you a crock of crap!"'
Let's try and get this right once and for all. First, these aren't legitimate vaccines as have been defined for decades, that being a vaccine had to do two things. Prevent infection and prevent transmission, and none of these "vaccines" do either, so they changed the definition to accommodate calling these drugs vaccines, which are experimental drugs since it normally takes ten to twelve years to go through all of the FDA's testing procedures. In point of fact, they don't work, including Pfizers drug. Pfizer CEO: Our Vaccines Offer ‘Limited, If Any Protection, otherwise there wouldn't be necessary to have an unending need for boosters Then there's the issue of bad reactions. It is my view that at some point the long term consequences of these forced vaccinations is going to be this generation's Thalidomide crisis.
If
Sotomayor is the number one demonstration of why we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution for term limits for the federal judiciary, both Breyer and Kagan both run a close second.
And to answer Sotomayor's question about where all the misinformation comes from. It comes from you, your cohorts on the court, the corrupt media and the Biden administration's Deep Staters.
Before Sonia Sotomayor, the “wise Latina” as she once referred to herself, was nominated by President Barack Hussein Obama in May 2009 and confirmed as Supreme Court justice that August, her legal expertise and judgment were being questioned by those noting her high reversal rate
high reversal rate by the court she was being elevated to:
Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.
“Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senate’s duty to do so,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
Well, the Senate gave her a pass, with Sen. Lindsey Graham, who mentions it frequently, being the sole Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voting to advance her nomination to the full Senate for a vote. Not giving her a pass these days is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has noted the double standard and bad law she applied in criticizing colleagues Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh for essentially being “Trump judges” by fighting the incessant lower court injunctions applied nationally to block President Trump’s policies and what the American people elected him to do, as reported in Texas Lawyer magazine:
Sen. Ted Cruz used Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on universal injunctions to criticize Justice Sonia Sotomayor for her dissent, accusing a “handful of judges” as acting as part of the “resistance movement” against the Trump administration in blocking its policies.
He compared her opinion, which he noted no other justices signed onto, to “an arsonist complaining about the noise from the fire trucks.”
Sotomayor last week chided the Trump administration for repeatedly coming to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking stays on district court injunctions.
“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the court would grant it,” she wrote.
My Take - The article points out Sotomayor's hypocrisy,
and her real concern, which is a second term as by Donald Trump
as President. Currently there are, according to Wikipedia, 870
authorized Article III judgeships: nine on the Supreme Court, 179 on the courts
of appeals, 673 for the district courts and nine on the Court of International
Trade. Trump has now appointed 187 judges to the federal courts and even the
9th district, which has been notoriously left wing, is now deciding cases on
the basis of law rather than their own leftist ideology. Trump could
potentially appoint another 200 or more if elected, including another Supreme Court
Justice.
As for Sotomayor, has anyone else in the world ever described her as wise? Yet Sotomayor fashions
herself as a "wise" Latina, while history demonstrates she's either a corrupt or an incompetent jurist,
and a disgrace as a human being. The perfect Obama appointee.
President Trump is right to call out Justice Sotomayor, and other unelected black robed social justice activist hacks who are masquerading as non-partisan upholders of the rule of law.
Remember when the United States Supreme Court carefully guarded their time-honored independence from the politics of the Executive and Legislative branches?
In those days, rarely were they ever seen or heard from outside of rendering opinions, and they kept those decisions based on the law, not politics. Those days are over thanks to judges who believe it is their role to act as a super legislature.
Recently Justice Sotomayor showed her disdain for President Trump in an exercise of judicial activism when in a dissenting opinion in Wolf v. Cook County, she accused the Court of putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration by siding more times than not in his favor.......To Read More.....
My Take - For a sitting Supreme Court Justice to openly and publicly
criticize white justices for bias is unheard of. Yet the most
consistently original constructionist in the court is Clearance Thomas. A
black justice. Years ago I read WHORES: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment by
Larry Klayman. I find him a bit odd, but one thing came out clear as a
bell in this book, and time has been showing this to be true; the federal judiciary
is filled with political hacks.
Sotomayor epitomizes that declaration.
A wise Latina? She claims there's no real definition for wise, well, again she's wrong. Wisdom is the practical application of knowledge and understanding. Wise decisions aren't based on the philosophical flavor of the day, especially leftist flavor's of the day since they're a changable as the latest ladies fashion.
Wisdom is based on truth. Truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality. Everything were told has a historical foundation and context. Everything we're told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. If want's presented to us fails in either of those categories, it's wrong. Saying it's right may be politically comfortable, but it isn't wisdom.
One more thought. Who besides Sotomayor ever said she was wise?
.
San Francisco, whether it knows it or not, should be bracing to get even more crime-ridden and hellish than it already is with the questionably rigged election of Chesa Boudin as the city's chief prosecutor.
Boudin, recall, vows to ignore quality-of life crimes; drop gang enhancement charges on gangsters; and pressure victims of violent crimes to opt for "restorative justice" instead of jail time, letting crooks off if they apologize. What could go wrong?
Not a problem for Wise Latina herself, Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor, who horned in on Boudin's inauguration, sending this far-to-the-far-leftist an unprecedented message ofpride and praise:..........
There's plenty more to gag about in the entire text of the message, transcribed in the San Francisco Chronicle,here.
Three ways to unpack this Sotomayor glurge:.............Now instead of sticking with her profession, she's advocating for solidarity among far-leftists. This is bad stuff. What it shows is just how unfit she is for her office and how unfit Boudin is, too.
This doesn't look good.........To Read More....
My Take - The author points out that Chesa Boudin, who pretty much plans on ignoring the law and let criminals go, has Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn as his step parents. Two radical far-left terrorists. Read more about Ayers here.
Wisdom is the application of knowledge and understanding, and if that's true, and it is, we know her knowledge is either limited or inaccurate, meaning her understanding is flawed. Ergo, this “wise Latina” utterly lacks wisdom.
I will also state, for those who’ve read the history of the Supreme Court, this isn’t anything new. In days past, there were appointees who everyone thought or knew was insane, and non partisanship has always been an elusive concept for the court.
The big difference is back then, the Congress understood the Constitution gave them the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, there weren’t as many federal judges, and there weren’t nearly as many laws, regulations, or agencies, which has been fertile ground for the abusive and idiotic rulings coming out of the courts, as a result, “The Supreme Court has broken through the firewalls constructed by the framers to limit judicial power.”
But Sotomayor is no longer the dimmest bulb on the court. Now we have Ketanji Brown Jackson, so Sotomayor is only second from the bottom. But on their best days, both are dim flickering light bulbs as a result of their low wattage intellects.
Too bad the Senate didn't ask Jackson if she was a woman, and if she said she was, they should have then asked her how does she know? The stupidity of these mental midgets is mind boggling.
Conclusion:
- Sotomayor is not a "wise Latina".
- Sotomayor is either ignorant of the law, or chooses to ignore the law.
- Sotomayor's logic is flawed
- Sotomayor's conclusions are stupid.
- Sotomayor's views are based on falsehoods
- Sotomayor is unfit to be a judge on any court, let alone the Supreme Court.
The only bench Sotomayor should be allowed to sit on is a park bench, and I put Jackson and Kagan in that same category, and there are four more "so-called conservative justices" who are marginal, with the Chief Justice leading the pack.