Robert L. Simon is the Epoch Times’s Editor
Sonia Sotomayor’s ludicrous claim before her Supreme Court peers during oral arguments that 100,000 children were “in serious condition” from COVID-19, when 3,000 would have been more accurate, is far more than just an embarrassment to the justice.
Is it possible for such an inept individual to be our most high court justice? What else doesn’t she know—or, perhaps more exactly, doesn’t want to know?
The full quote makes it even worse.
“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, many on ventilators.”
All of this is false. There is currently a spike in Omicron-related cases. Many people have compared it to having a cold. However, most Omicron variants can be managed at home using therapeutics.
RELATED: ‘The View’ Tries To Cover For Justice Sotomayor’s False COVID Claims
Even extreme vaccine enthusiast CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky admitted that hospitalizations for other age groups were fifteenfold greater than the pediatric—and those weren’t much.
Sotomayor wasn’t alone on the court in her (what some might euphemistically call) “mischaracterizations.” Justice Stephen Breyer claimed “750 million new cases” of coronavirus had been reported in our country, when the entire population is well less than half that.
Support Conservative Voices!
Get the most recent news by signing upYour inbox receives political news and insight.
Is it possible to have two COVID-19-containing cases? Who’d a thunk it?
What’s going on here? Is it possible that the Supreme Court justices are taking dumb pills? Is the “Wise Latina” not so wise after all?
She may not be a legal genius, but that’s not the problem. The problem is what I have called “want-to-believe.”
Sotomayor and Breyer are so convinced of liberal/conservative ideology that they are unable even to see the arguments of the other side, sometimes to the extent that they don’t even know they are there, that they exist.
RELATED: Rand Paul Asks ‘Is Fauci Advising Justice Sotomayor?’ After Her False COVID Claims
This is even true when the arguments are about science, not politics—when facts, not opinions, are most important.
Have either of these people—Supreme Court justices who must have known for months that they were going to have to rule on matters concerning COVID—read any of the books on the subject by Alex Berenson, Dr. Scott Atlas, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr., himself obviously a liberal? Did they see any videos by Drs. Peter McCullough and Robert Malone, some available right here on The Epoch Times, warning of the significant dangers of vaccinating children with barely tested mRNA? Malone is, however, one of the original mRNA vaccine creators.
Have they even read the Great Barrington Declaration? What do they know about the people who signed it? Are they even sure what the item is?
The answer to almost all these questions, and possibly even all, is probably no. For almost all liberals and progressives I know, it is. CNN and The New York Times deem them morally narcissists and make them accept them as automatons. They say ignorance is bliss.
COVID is a case in point. This extreme ignorance left many dead across the globe. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are not to be trusted, even though they can save many millions. Trump even recommended them. They must be terrible.
RELATED: Rand Paul Hammers Fauci Over ‘Hysteria’ Leading To More School Closures
Do you think there is anything stupider or less scientific than that?
But that’s where we are on our Supreme Court—of all places, the new haven of know-nothingism. Mere bias wasn’t enough.
Sotomayor must clearly abstain from any COVID-related matters.
She won’t. The American left—straight up to SCOTUS justices, apparently—is suffused with a belief that everything they say is automatically correct and whatever they think ought to be true is true.
Sotomayor might not make a blunder as obvious as this one again, but the thought process—or lack thereof—that led to it will not change.
It could be called the anti-scientific methodology.
RealClearWire granted permission to syndicate.
Contributors and content partners may express their opinions, but they do not reflect those of The Political Insider.