The last week’s historic decisions from the Supreme Court led to an array of factual objections from critics. In Justice Neil Gorsuch’s major free speech ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a man who believes that he is “Stewart” referenced in the case (as asking for a website for a same sex marriage) never made such a contact with the company. In Justice Sotomayor’s dissent to that case, the justice falsely claims that the Pulse mass shooting (“the second-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history”) was an intended anti-LGBT attack. (The shooter apparently was unaware of what type of nightclub it was). Those mistakes, however, had little impact on the reasoning. That is not the case with a mathematical challenge raised to the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the North Carolina affirmative action case.
In a Wall Street Journal column, lawyer Ted Frank objects to what he argues is a “mathematically absurd claim” about black newborns in Jackson’s dissent. Jackson was arguing that affirmative action has been shown to “save lives” by allowing black doctors to give better care for black people than white doctors.
“It saves lives. For marginalized communities in North Carolina, it is critically important that UNC and other area institutions produce highly educated professionals of color. Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly (including, for example, prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medication). For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”
Frank objected:
“A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible. Imagine if 40% of black newborns died—thousands of dead infants every week. But even so, that’s a 60% survival rate, which is mathematically impossible to double. And the actual survival rate is over 99%.”
The claim is based on a 2020 study cited in a footnote, which Justice Jackson appears to have taken from an amicus brief by the Association of American Medical Colleges. However, Frank again objects that the study is not only “flawed” but does not make that claim:
“The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians).”
Frank says that “the AAMC brief either misunderstood the paper or invented the statistic.” He also notes that the study is flawed by relying on a linear regression given the small differential of 10 newborns a year. Instead, he claims that study did the accepted logistic model analysis in such cases but put the results in an appendix:
“There, the most highly specified model still shows an improvement in black newborn survival. But if you know how to read the numbers—the authors don’t say it—it also shows black doctors with a statistically significant higher mortality rate for white newborns, and a higher mortality rate overall, all else being equal.”
I cannot claim any particular skill at “reading the numbers.” However, this controversy captured my attention because I have always been leery of so-called “Brandeis briefs” before the Supreme Court where amici dump studies into the record.
Before joining the court, Justice Louis Brandeis filed such a brief in his brilliant challenge to work place conditions. It is now a common feature in briefing of cases as groups and associations push studies as determinative or substantial evidence on one side or another. My opposition to the brief is that the justices are in a poor position to judge the veracity or accuracy of such studies. They simply pick and choose between rivaling studies to claim a definitive factual foundation for an opinion.
It is also frustrating that, as a litigator, you fight over every entry into the record at trial. However, when you are before the Supreme Court, everyone is free to just dump statistics and studies into the record and the Court regularly uses such material to determine the outcome. It produces more of a legislative environment for the court as different parties insert data to support their own view of what is a better policy or more serious social problem. There is only a limited ability of parties to challenge such data given limits on time and space in briefing.
The result is that major decisions or dissents can be built on highly contested factual assertions. In this case, critics believe that the Jackson argument literally does not add up.
Jonathan: I agree that “major decisions …can be built on highly contested factual assumptions”. But my reasons are different than yours. For starters, “303 Creative LLC v. Elenis” was decided by the Gorsuch conservative majority based on dubious factual assumptions. Lorie Smith had no “standing” because her case was entirely made up. There was no “actual case or controversy” before the Court. In her court filings Smith falsely claimed a man by the name of “Stewart” made a request for website for he and his male partner. Stewart denies he contacted Smith’s design services. He is married to a woman. A simple investigation by Gorsuch’s clerks would have discovered this threshold problem. The case should have been sent back to the federal district court for further review. But Gorsuch decided he wanted to take the case because it would give him opportunity to issue an “advisory opinion”, something the Court just doesn’t do, to declare that a business can lawfully discriminate against gay couples in public accommodations.
This is not the first time Gorsuch has made up facts to justify his rulings. Last term Gorsuch ruled in favor of a football coach who thought he should have the right to lead prayers at a public high school football game. Gorsuch falsely claimed the football coach merely “offered his prayers quietly”. That’s false as Justice Sotomayor pointed out her dissent. She pointed to photos that showed the coach conducting showy prayers at the 50 yd line surrounded by spectators. Gorsuch is no stranger to controversy. He owes his seat on the Court to Mitch McConnell who refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee, because he wanted to hold the seat open so Trump could make his own conservative nomination. That helped “pack” the Court in favor of the conservatives. Conservatives complain that the Dems want to “pack” the Court with liberal Justices. But Trump did it in spades!
And this is not the first case the Justices have relied on dubious facts to justify their decisions. In “Shelby County v. Holder Chief Justice Roberts included incorrect data in a comparison of voter registration among Black people and white people in certain states. So why the hub bub over Justice Jackson’s stats? It’s a distraction from the basic fact that the conservative majority thinks the LGBTQ+ is not entitled to the equal protection of the laws. It’s a sad day when the Court endorses the right of religious zealots to deny rights to gay couples–rights that everyone else enjoys. That’s the important part you missed!
I think the “hub-bub”, as you call it, is that this is just a blatant examples of why this angry, misinformed racist should never have been placed in ANY judicial position at all, much less the highest court in our nation. She is another Karine Jean-Pierre, a sop to minorities and grievance mongers with little qualifications other than checking appropriate boxes. In fact, much of biden’s administration is filled with this flotsam where the concept of merit as a qualification has been tossed in the garbage.
As a veteran of the US Navy, I love your reference to Biden’s Administration as floating ship wreckage.
The Left uses gays/lesbians much like they use everyone else: for talking points. The Left hate gays/lesbians, much like they hate blacks, hispanics, asians and anyone who is not white and earns less than $100K per year. Democrats today are the Democrats of Jim Crowe legacy
Glenn Greenwald, the Bane of Their Resistance
A leftist journalist’s bruising crusade against establishment Democrats—and their Russia obsession.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance
Mad About Bari Weiss: The New York Times Provocateur the Left Loves to Hate
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/bari-weiss-the-new-york-times-provocateur
That sounds great, I hope Gorsuch uses very libtard demoncrat tactic and rams it in your craw where it sticks till you die, driving you mad.
“We dumbocrats kept pulling all sorts of crap till one day it happened to us and we squealed and screamed it’s not fair, then we died.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA
Lame ducks failing to get their SC picks thru is an age old issue. Has happened several times on both sides, gaslighter. Elections have consequences. The election of the man who said that (cult of personality selection aided by white shame) had a huge consequence…Trump. Now you get to live with it, and thanks to one man (whom I said the morning Biden was announced as president, just became the most powerful person in America–Joe Manchin), the sorry Dems don’t get to change the rules again to get their way.
With what we have seen Merrick Garland, the political hack, is capable of, thank god he didn’t get a hearing.
Dennis
Gay couples now have the same rights as Nazi’s, and all the rest of us. They can have their cake or website made by someone who’s deeply held religious beliefs don’t conflict with their lifestyle.
You’re the one who doesn’t get it.
My god, what a low bag.
The authenticity and admissibility of documentary evidence is adjudicated by the trial Court. Try harder, fail better.
LOL – who knew ?
“”Thank you for reaching out and for doing your due diligence here,” Stewart told CBS News in an email. He said he has been a web designer for more than 15 years — including working as a web designer for CNN.com in Atlanta between 2012 and 2015 — and he denied sending the request mentioned the lower court filing. “”
Yes, thanks so much for “reaching out” inside the liberal lies complex and babbling out another whopper !
Wow, the deceptive one did it again.
“the court’s decision — which mainly focused on Smith’s First Amendment protections and acknowledged that she had proven standing to sue based on a credible threat of retaliation from the state of Colorado. Referencing the earlier decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the majority cited “Colorado’s record of past enforcement actions under CADA, including one that worked its way to this Court five years ago.”
HAHAHAHHAHAHAA – The looney tunes lawfare is to blame. If I knew she was webbing, I’d have baked a cake ….
When, as, and if the Democrat Party as a whole wants to pursue ‘packing the court,’ it is highly likely to be with judges who don’t know arithmetic, and/or have an historic propensity for having their judgments tainted by the politics of the moment. Sotomayor, Jackson, are two prime examples of those who make non-judicial, or extra-judicial judgments — of course, one could say something similar about the more conservatively oriented justices, but proving it would be difficult.
This song came on the radio yesterday and “three little birds” made me think of the SCOTUS liberal minority:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjOhZZyn30k
I wouldn’t want to debate Kagan, though. I’m pretty sure she’d outsmart me and do it with a smile.
Ten years from now an intelligent black person will have to wonder if his black doctor received his credentials because he is qualified or because he is black. His black doctor may be highly qualified but the doubt will be part of his evaluation. No mater, If he likes his white doctor he can keep his white doctor. Right?
Segregation is important for the health of the oppressed.
So demoncrats have been murdering black babies at least since their march across the Selma bridge.
Next the demoncrats need to do a just the brown taco downtown clown around, or they are guilty of murdering the babies of those too.
I would imagine that for decades now, that question ( whether merit or race got you your education/job) has been in the back of many people’s minds and now, with first obama’s and then biden’s selections for staffing their administrations, that perception is being confirmed. Just look at his press secretary, his VP, his Secretary of Transportation, that sick f*ck who was stealing ladies’ luggage and I could go on and on. Just imagine what is going on inside most woke corporations and medical institutions and don’t even go into what has happened to educational institutions and public schools. We have allowed the pernicious prog/left to destroy so much of our cultural foundations and we need ask ourselves why and when are we going to put an end to it.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s background on the bench was highly suggestive of a legal lightweight prior to her confirmation. Jackson’s failure to define a woman at her confirmation hearing suggested a poor attempt to hide a highly partisan bias. That combination is deadly for an institution that is purposed in making judgements based on the constitutionality of circumstances presented.
To take the phrase “mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for black newborns with black pediatricians” and turn that into “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.” shows not only a lack of understanding of the facts and the state of the medical literature, it again demonstrates Jackson’s grasping at straws to justify partisan positions.
Jackson exposes herself to not only be a lightweight in legal and biologic matters but in reading and interpreting. Is this and example of ‘stupid people don’t know they are stupid’ or ‘partisan politics’? Time will tell.
In her confirmation hearing, Jackson distanced herself from critical race theory, especially under questioning from Ted Cruz. Yet her dissent is a critical race theory screed, moving from cherry-picked statistical disparities in flawed studies, to alleged systemic racism (said to arise from slavery and the laws of inheritance) as their explanation, to racial discrimination in favour of blacks as the solution until somehow sometime the disparities are eliminated and we can all walk in harmony together. This is the argument that Justice Thomas dissected in his concurrence.
The argument in favour of affirmative action has always hijacked statistical disparities influenced heavily by the situation of the black underclass to confer benefits on the black middle, professional and upper classes. It is a con game.
If you think this was CRT, then you may want read more about CRT’s approach to affirmative action.
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1456&context=lawineq#:~:text=Taken%20together%2C%20these%20cases%20illustrate,to%20correct%20broad%20social%20discrimination.
Here is an article, which outlines why the Court’s two discussed rationales for race-conscious discrimination (righting passed governmental wrongs & diversity) should not be the justification for affirmative action. Actual CRT suggests that affirmative action, as implemented, is just another tool of white supremacy, etc. CRT instead argues that affirmative action should be considered an “affirmative right rooted in present social circumstances.”
I don’t subscribe to any of this, but it is absolutely incorrect to slap on the CRT label to her dissent. I find nowhere in her dissent that she supports this wholly new justification for a compelling government interest in race-based affirmative action under the Equal Protection Clause. If you can cite a particular part of the dissent where she makes this novel argument, please let me know.
This mistake is yet another example of the conservative-created “CRT” boogeyman that is not based on the parameters of the actual radical leftist ideology. Labels matter. Please read up on actual scholarly CRT rather than spread false notions of what you think it means.
An “affirmative right rooted in present social circumstances” is no different from what Jackson is proposing. She wants to let the “experts” discriminate in favour of blacks until the disparities arising from the “system” are eliminated. You are playing with words.
One in 500 (.2%) to one in 769 (.13%) could easily be a statistical aberration within the error rate of mere chance.
Say you have 5,000 births in the polling group, 2,500 per good doctor or affirmative action segregated racist color counts most.
A difference of 5 births per 2,500 covers the stat, and attributing that to race which demoncrats claim doesn’t exist is tilting at windmills ignoring much larger factors.
A 0.13% to 0.2% difference is essentially statistical “noise” – it doesn’t really show anything, much less what she purports that it does.
Here’s a story about Kamala’s latest word salad:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/kamala-harris-stumbles-culture
Justice Kagan would’ve simply said, “I’m not a philologist.”
I believe that she knows what she is spouting is a bunch of malarkey but she says it anyway. It’s more important to send the correct signals than to be honest. Then again, maybe she believes what she says. In either case we’re in for many years of buffoonery. There is a silver lining. Most Americans see that she is revealing the true nature of her character.
When you’ve been determined to have been the best of the qualified females of color for the position the likelihood that there’s more qualified than you in terms of gender or complexion cannot be dismissed. If the preferred clinician for the black communityh can only be drawn from the black community, the choose your neurosurgeon carefully. They’re not all Ben Carson. Your prenatal and neonatal physicians as well. We already know what we have lacking in a Supreme Court justice.
Jackson can not define what the word “woman” means, hence her intelligence and/or integrity are non-existent. As I have stated at least 2 times on this forum regarding Jackson, she was raised a privileged girl in a wealthy area of Miami known as Pinecrest, where less than 3% blacks live. Her parents separately had salaries in the 6 figures: her father an attorney, her mother a school administrator. Jackson just isn’t up to the task of being intelligent nor honest about anything, despite have a privileged background in Miami.
Elena Kagan is an intelligent woman and a formidable thinker. She and Antonin Scalia were hunting buddies. Yet, she is also a partisan, as seen in her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School 15 years ago. Kagan, as Dean of HLS, was against using Affirmative Action for accepting women into the prestigious Harvard Law Review for the same reason Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell are against Affirmative Action for blacks in any situation.
Law Review Draws Fire For Gender Gap
Women make up only a quarter of editors, and numbers are slipping
Published On Monday, November 10, 2003 12:00 AM
But some HLS professors, including HLS Dean Elena Kagan, said if the Review announced an affirmative action policy, it would imply that women could not be accepted based on merit alone. All three of the Review’s faculty advisors—who are also all women—do not support introducing affirmative action for women.
“Such a plan would offer Law Review membership to perhaps a handful more women per class while making all women selected for the Law Review wonder whether they would have been selected absent such a program (and making other Review editors, as well as judges and other future employers, wonder the same thing),” HLS Professor and Review faculty advisor Carol S. Steiker told the Record……
[…]
Kagan said more important than focusing on the Review’s admissions process would be a broader study of the under-performance of women in law school.
“The under-representation of women on the Law Review is a concern, but I’m not inclined to think an affirmative action plan is the answer. I think that in this context the costs of affirmative action would outweigh the benefits of putting another handful of women on the Review,” Kagan wrote in a statement. “I think we should focus instead on discovering the reasons for gender disparities within law schools generally; that would be a very significant contribution to legal education.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20060110175923/https://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349956
Naturally the original article was removed from the Harvard Crimson Paper website but happily the wayback machine has it.
TL; DR: Elena Kagan was against Affirmative Action when it supported her reasoned arguments but now defends Affirmative Action because it supports her politics.
Is “being intelligent” a task?
for you it can be a life time goal
“I think we should focus instead on discovering the reasons for gender disparities within law schools generally”
LOL, she doesn’t know….
Dear justice Jackson, girls have innies and boys have outys. See it’s that simple.
“A moment’s thought should be enough to realize that this claim is wildly implausible.”
That’s good work. But it’s irrelevant to affirmative action. There is no justification for racial bigotry.
I also love how the she admits that black doctors are more likely to prescribe pain meds to drug seeking black patients. Certainly an argument for more black doctors.
No other conclusion can be drawn because what is the OBJECTIVE criteria for “Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance”. Htf did they determine that (not measurable)??? Merely by the fact that black doctors were more likely to prescribe pain meds (measurable).
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics”.
Samuel Clements
This is what happens when you start with a decision and then cast about for the justification.
Ruling on Constitutionality is a simple, straightforward process. It is only when Justices wish to ignore the plain language of the Constitution that they resort to such tortuous, irrelevant arguments.
Regarding our newest obsessed commenter, Reagan Torture guy, please understand that up until a few years ago he was probably obsessed with Nixon, talked incessantly about the House Un-American Activities Committee, claimed that Alger Hiss was innocent and that the Rosenbergs were framed.
Now that most folks don’t remember Nixon, have no idea about Hiss and the Rosenberg trial and never read history he has decided to obsess over Reagan, the best president of the 20th century.
Remember, to this Reagan hating class of people the Russians are the arch enemy (they are an enemy, just not our biggest threat by far) but the Soviets, our true arch enemy at the time, were perfect. Today these leftist tools will never be critical of China…because China is our enemy and they hate America.
Whenever mathematics enters an argument, goofy statements immediately pop up. People are quite generally innumerate. Ignoring all the shortcomings of the underlying study, and the intellectual shortcomings of Justice Brown herself, I can see where a reduction in mortality from, say, 0.02% to 0.01%, that is a halving of a risk, might be misconstrued by an educated but innumerate person as a doubling of survival. It’s no more than a misunderstanding of the concepts of risk, survival, mortality, percentage, doubling, and reciprocal.
BTW, back in the disputed year 2000 election I learned by watching the news that journalists are greatly challenged by the concept of percentage. People are far less intelligent than we think.
Observational studies can miss, by design or by oversight, confounding factors that render the results misleading. They almost never prove what they claim. If black newborns with the most serious difficulties are seen by specialists who are more likely to be white than black, then any assessment of relative mortality risk must control for that scenario. The study in question did not do that.
“as a doubling of survival. It’s no more than a misunderstanding of the concepts of risk, survival, mortality, percentage, doubling, and reciprocal.”
What is scary is that Jackson doesn’t recognize where her knowledge and understanding fail. She is also too quick to convert one idea into another without being able to explore the fundamental differences. This lack of intellect is what we see on the left, permitting people like her to gain recognition and appointment to the Supreme Court.
KevinT. your experience matches mine. People are innumerate. That is really no a pejorative, just a fact. Most dont know what they dont know, and easily fooled. Credit card debt is a great example.
People maybe dumb but law clerks are not. Law review types always check and double all facts used in an argument (or are supposed to anyway). Where are her fact checking law clerks? Is the notorious KBJ being made to look the fool by a cabal of racist law clerks?
For a black woman who has been inculcated with racial hatred from the start by a prog/left partisan media/education industry and a dem party filled with community organizers the likes of obama – one would expect such a jumble of misinformation salved by vitriol for anything conforming to the “white privilege” data of the conservative court. She is as useless to the court as cametoes harris is to our executive branch and adam shiftless is to our congress. But we, on the right, allowed this onslaught of progressivism to gain control for far too long and now we must knuckle under or resist – what is it going to be? Are we going to go down with a whimper?
Are we going to go down with a whimper?
Nice video, I just love tap dancing, but I am afraid our problem here is not solvable by tap dancing (I doubt if that is what the founding fathers were thinking of when they implied the course of action needed when a government becomes egregiously working against the betterment of We the People). I do think that sterner and more effective pushback is going to be required to right this ship.
Fraction Jackson
I have said it before and I will say it again, the saddest and most frustrating aspect of these decisions is that “the Little 3” will never stray from voting with the liberal/media/Democrat mindset.
The good news is that, as opposed to the overturning of Roe, these 3 decisions ARE ALL POPULAR with the vast majority of American voters. The people don’t want AA in colleges or anywhere, including blacks, the people don’t want the government to be able to force anyone to create something of which they loathe, like forcing a liberal ad company to make an ad for Trump, and the vast majority doesn’t think a) that student loans should be paid off (they are not forgiven, they are paid by others) and b0 that a president can write an EO that spends 400 BILLION dollars on his own whim.
To see the president and the media trying to decry these decisions is laughable. All I say is keep talking Democrats, keep alienating Asians, Hispanics, whites, moderates, gays that aren’t radicals and all others by claiming Biden can wipe out CERTAIN loans, their kids get shortchanged in college admissions and that a Muslim baker can be forced to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it.
I haven’t read the opinions and have only seen excerpts (principally the ones which the leftist Press wants everybody to see), but it sure seems like Justice Kagan has given up her prior role of acting as pied piper to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh drawing them to narrow the scope of the Court’s rulings on hot button issues with conciliatory concurrences. Kagan is the only member of the Kagan/Sotomayor/Jackson bloc with the cunning and intellectual abilities to play that game, and it seems like she’s quit and has come to terms with being a perennial member of the Court’s three member minority. Trading Ginsburg for Coney Barrett meant that CJ Roberts had less to gain by partnering with Kagan to narrow a rule to the unique facts or some other strategy to stave off the partial restoration of the Constitution.
In the 21st Century, only two presidents lost the popular vote but were given the presidency. Bush lost 500,000 more votes than Gore did. Trump lost almost 3 million more votes than Hillary Clinton (Trump previously supported Hillary Clinton and Hillary was originally a Rockefeller Republican).
Then the Republican Party (that never won the presidential popular vote in the 21st Century), robbed Obama of about 100 federal judges and a U.S. Supreme Court. Those same Republicans then rammed through Trump’s judge picks – permanently upsetting the balance of the entire Judicial Branch court system.
Then Trump (and friends) master-minded a coup attempt – a form of treason for any oath-sworn official.
I understand why Democrats are so pissed, but why are Republicans so angry? This unfair system benefited Republicans.
This Reagan hating lunatic is defending his position on Democrats by basically saying that the Electoral College, and therefore the Constitution, needs to be subverted.
This Reagan hating lunatic is probably some ex-professor, bald with a pony-tail, moderately struggling in a crappy apartment in some big city and either driving a 20 year old “Bug” or having no car at all. Oh, he eats only ben and Jerry’s ice cream, made by another bald guy with a pony-tail.
PS. I am a bald guy, but without a pony-tail.
If this desperate post wasnt so sad, it would be funny. The vote is not a national popularity contest. If Gore would have won his home state in 2000 then Florida would not have mattered. In playing along with your game, if you subtract Hillarys margin of victory in California (3,200,000) from the US total then Trump had more votes in 2016 . We do not play the popular vote game and Dems love the electoral college when it favors them ( as they did the Supreme Court and fillibuster, which they have used hundreds of time when it benefitted them) . If they dont win then they want the rules changes. They act like the Duke’s at the end of Trading Places yet lecture about election denial post 2020 which convenient short memories forget they did in 2016 . Subvert the constitution but make sure your DNC propaganda media outlets lecture everyone about Democracy. If you think there is an unfair system in DC that has benefitted the Republican far more than the Democrats then you are biased and blind to the reality. This “robbing of court picks” comes from the same man who said “elections have consequences”. Dems want the Republicans in DC to just roll over and most times they do. Democrats will claim everything they do is for the people yet when they lose in Congress or in the Courts it is always a travesty that must be immediately corrected
PERMANENTLY UPSETTING THE BALANCE IN THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL BRANCH, IS THAT A FACT? HAVE YOU NOTICED THE AMOUNT THAT BIDEN HAS DONE TO RESTORE THE BALANCE.
No one was “given” the Presidency. There is no such thing in U.S. law and the Constitution as the “popular vote” – it is an invention of the Press. There are 51 Presidential elections held simultaneously in the fifty States and District of Columbia contesting for the electoral votes of each. I understand that you don’t like the system in place since the founding of the Republic because it doesn’t give you what you want right now, but I have no interest in acceding to the demands of people whose moral development was arrested in toddlerdom so I suppose we’ll all just have to live with the Electoral College now, won’t we?
When someone quotes statistics, it does not mean the person is trying to mislead– it might just be that the person is not aware of the flaw in the statistics. Take this example. Suppose a politician is trying to push a green record and says the following: “The US now (1961) has mote trees than it did 1958.” True, but what is the reason? Massive tree planting? No. The real reason is that Alaska became a state in 1959. Did the politician know the full story, or, may have just read the statistics, but did not look behind it?
Sure. Because black people are not of the same human species as everyone else, and those evil non-black doctors could care less anyway, go to the vet, you animals. 🙄🙄
The chip on the shoulder of these racist AF people, who are very nearly always leftist, usually white, and very often female, is threatening to outbalance the Jupiter sized ignorance chip off of the other shoulder. Yes, Justice Jackson is black, but black folks sure didn’t put her there, and the blatant exploitation is a sight to behold. We absolutely SHOULD be past such nonsense in the 21st century, but the left needs their raison d’etre, and by gum, they’ll have it.
To paraphrase Dr. McCoy from Star Trek: “Damn it, Jim — I’m a Supreme Court Justice, not a mathematician!”
or,
“Damn it John, I’m a Juris Doctor not a Statistician”
“Damn it, Spock — you and your insufferable Vulcan logic!”
In other news: “Woke Students Outraged that Psychiatry Professor Claims
‘There are human emotions other than outrage’.”
Professor Ronald Rutland caused a mass of students to go prompt critical
when he suggested during a lecture that “There exists among humans a wide
spectrum of differing emotions, beyond that of what you might see expressed
in today’s news–namely there is more to human emotion than just outrage.”
What followed was a complete meltdown and devolvement of decorum in the
gallery when a student ignited from his chair and angrily began shouting
down the professor, which lead to more, and more students in lockstep
waiving clenched fists and bleating derisions of “fascist!, NAZI.” and such.
Professor Rutland attempted to appease the rancor, by reminding them that
good emotions such as “Love” are certainly ones to embrace. Yet a
particularly offended and deeply wounded woman dropped to her knees, wailed
in tears, and cried out: “What is Love? Don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me, no
more!!”
“Let me try to put out my words in a manner you all might understand,”
Rutland gruffly replied “love is the emotion you all blindly bestow and
adulate politicians with; as well as the love you give to those political causes you chain yourselves to.
For you, that is love.”
Yet even that did not seem to work. The students began to then lecture the professor by insisting that their
adoration of their politicians and causes was not Love but instead are
“expressions of a mandatory duty that all human beings owe their dear
leaders.”
Outrage apparently is to them the only permissible form of emotion, which is
perhaps why they are always angered and unhinged.
Interesting story, but I cannot verify it. Do you have a link providing citation?
Babylon Bee?
@Darren
🤣🤣🤣
Darren,
HA!
Good one!