Home | About | Donate

Supreme Court's Scientifically Illiterate Decision Will Cost Lives

They’re only human lives. Don’t have a bitch fit. It’s not as if humans were created exceptional, or special, that they don’t deserve to die at all. Human life has been a curse to all life on planet Earth.

1 Like

She probably disliked what Obama was going to do with her position. If you like what Ginsberg herself stood for, that might give you some idea what the options likely were.

I dunno about that. There are at least 4 Federalist Society true believers on it now.

1 Like

Yes, I agree.

1 Like

Not really, ask any one who has been beaten, tear gassed, pepper sprayed and or kettled while peaceably assembled and protesting lately. Actually this is a long term trend. The violence against the civil rights movement and anti Vietnam protestors comes to mind. If you go back to the early 20th century, labor strikers were frequently beaten and even shot. The first amendment applies to those whom the powers that be approve of.


Maybe she didn’t trust Obamascam; wonder why?

The “Supreme Court” will not be anything even close to resembling “supreme” for decades to come.

It’s a crying shame it has been given the power over our lives that it has.

1 Like

I’m not sure what you mean, civil disobedience is not protected speech. Even so there has been a deterioration of what is acceptable remedy.

" The **First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government."

There are other examples too. Like the protests at reproductive health centers and others.

Quel nitwits.

We have a manifestly intolerable condition here, implicitly augmenting revolutionary risks, for the PTB. They can and will keep crushing us, you see, but it gets riskier for them from now on, as it becomes clear to everyone the dominant wackos are well prepared to kill us with their “deadly games.” What was conflict on more ideological grounds becomes mortal combat, as they keep raising the stakes.

Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.

Amidst a pandemic that has already claimed over a quarter million American lives, the Court today enjoins one of New York’s public health measures aimed at containing the spread of COVID–19 in areas facing the most severe outbreaks.

– Justice Sonia Sotomayor

The top of our ongoing digest of Johns Hopkins positivity stats, listing USA’s most severe state outbreaks, is quite turbulent today, with Washington, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania leaping up into awful contention:

>                        JH       per-capita     immed
>                    positivity    newcases    mortality
>                        %            %            %
>  1. South Dakota      46.4        131.3         1.64
>  2. Iowa              43.0        104.7         0.70
>  3. Kansas            37.8         81.2         0.73
>  4. Idaho             41.2         69.2         0.80
>  5. Wyoming           24.3        111.8         0.71
>  6. North Dakota      12.9        153.2         1.16
>  7. Montana           18.1         91.8         1.11
>  8. Washington        61.8         26.4         0.58
>  9. Utah              18.1         83.9         0.34
> 10. Wisconsin         14.1         98.0         0.72
> 11. Nebraska          13.1         97.1         0.63
> 12. New Mexico        14.3         82.0         1.12
> 13. Oklahoma          18.4         65.9         0.52
> 14. Missouri          17.7         65.0         0.83
> 15. Minnesota         11.6         97.2         0.71
> 16. Pennsylvania      24.4         41.6         0.99

It is interesting that freedom has suddenly become “simplistic.” I doubt it is so, but I would usually hope that anyone who regards it as simple should opt for freedom, and I find it suspicious otherwise.

In the current case, we do have a moderately lethal virus, apparently lethal at something very like 4 times the rate of a common annual flu. That means a lot of deaths, and nothing and no statistic in this is likely to be a simple matter.

But whatever else we do, let us not cave quickly to this idea that one or another emergency should necessarily mean that people should not be able to peaceably assemble. This does not excuse obfuscating the risks, but that the government should forbid it is not only unconstitutional but a terrible precedent.

1 Like

Well, that actually depends on the law that one is disobeying.

And peacefully assembly is certainly protected in a literal interpretation, though people take these words to mean all sorts of things.

1 Like

I think you are right about that and every experience is different. In my experience there is usually a line and if you cross it, you get arrested. This issue is poorly designed in my opinion and I don’t see how they ruled as they did, even though I have some agreement with your post above.

Disclaimer: I have little understanding what it is like to live in nyc.


My inner misanthrope likes your inner misanthrope. How weird is that?


Publicly-funded health care for everyone… NOW.

Massive investment in public health… clinics, nutrition, exercise, water, parks, clean air, water, schools, theaters, dance and music and meaningful work… NOW.


Law enforcement is a blunt Instrument. Any kind of government coercion is a blunt instrument. What is needed is an array of fine instruments. Free testing, free housing for those who are homeless. Nutrition and medicine for everyone that needs them. Testing vans in every neighborhood. In-home care readily available, affordable to everyone.

Measures such as these are far more effective than government coercion. I think I’m suggesting something that remains fairly obvious, despite the massive dumbing-down that has degraded human culture: governments that HELP their citizenries are far more likely to cultivate good will in their citizenries — and trust, and cooperation — than governments that POLICE their citizenries.


The Supreme Court should not be allowed to throw out legislative acts at all. That is a power they falsely appropriated for themselves In Marbury v Madison. Now here they are throwing out the reasoning of state governments and replacing it with their own. Soon they’ll just issue the entire content of the law themselves.

The trend that began with Marbury v. Madison is unconstitutional. The judicial branch was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches. Congress was supposed to be the strongest, with the House of Representatives leading the way. Now the order of importance is flipped upside-down. This would not have happened if the Supreme Court had stayed within its proper constitutional role… way back in 1803.

1 Like

I seriously doubt that Barry’s unsatisfied desire to stack the Supreme court with “Leftist” corporatist justices would have made America any better than leaving those desires unsatisfied.

Most judges have a law school background, and know very little about science. Thus, they are in a poor position to analyze scientific data and draw reasonable conclusions. For this, the honest judge would seek the advice of several experts in the particular field of science involved.
Clearly, there are a few Supreme Court Justices who are less than honest.


Thank you for giving me a good laugh today! Now…does this mean we’re really not misanthropes?

1 Like