• During a hearing on Friday, January 7th, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor made several blatantly false statements regarding covid-19
• How can the American public expect the court to make the right decision if those presiding over the case are so grossly uninformed?
The Supreme Court of the United States is currently locked in arguably one of the most important cases in quite some time.
The National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor is set to determine whether or not the Biden Administration can move forward with a federal mandate forcing private businesses to require employees to receive covid-19 inoculations.
The fact that this even made its way to the Supreme Court in the first place — given that anyone with even a basic understanding of the Constitution is already aware that this so-called mandate is unconstitutional — is astonishing enough.
Not to mention the idea of demanding millions of Americans to undergo a forced injection of an experimental, untested, demonstrably faulty jab that by definition is not a vaccine, is dystopic in its own right.
But this is compounded by what is apparently a malinformed judge hell-bent on her own agenda. That, or one guilty of gross negligence regarding the facts of a case she is providing over.
During the proceedings, Justice Sonia Sotomayor espoused several talking points regarding the prevalence and severity of covid-19, in particular the Omicron variant, which were abjectly false.
Among them, claiming that over 100,000 children are currently hospitalized due to covid; the omicron variant is deadlier than delta; and covid-19 deaths are at an all time high. All of these are falsehoods.
Justice Sotomayor also claimed that hospitals are nearing capacity.
She also asked "Why is a human spewing a virus not like a machine spewing sparks?"
Incredible performance all around.
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 7, 2022
Her claims were so astonishingly inaccurate in fact that even PolitiFact, one of the “fact checkers” infamous for their opinionated revisionisms towing the anti-science establishment narrative was forced to issue a correction.
Contrary to Justice Sotomayor’s assertion, the actual number of children hospitalized with covid-19 is 3,342, as per offical data from the Department of Health.
The claim that the Omicron variant is deadlier than Delta is also wildly untrue. In fact, the doctors who discovered the variant have been urging calm as the mild variant sweeps its way across the globe. Despite the notably low hospitalizations and death rates, governments the world over enable the next wave of mass hysteria.
Recently censored mRNA vaccine technology inventor Dr. Robert Malone even went so far as to suggest that due to the variants mild nature it may even be seen as a “Christmas gift” in terms of helping humanity achieve lasting natural immunity.
Regarding the ensuing legal battle, a recent piece from The Wall Street Journal even postulated that the Omicron variant may be the final nail in the coffin for the Biden administration’s attempted dictatorial action. Making the case that the prevalence of the variant combined with the high rate of transmission and notably low severity make the argument for mandates a moot point.
Anyone who has actually been paying attention to the facts as opposed to the fear-driven establishment narrative would agree. The evidence, in the form of over 400 scientific studies compiled by The Brownstone Institute, clearly demonstrates the abject failure of compulsory covid interventions. Including existing vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, lockdowns, forced distancing, and mandatory masking.
What should be infinitely more concerning is the fact that we have a Supreme Court Justice presiding over a case which is to set the precedent as to whether or not workplaces are forced to bow to authoritarian decrees antithetical to facts, logic, and actual science — who is apparently either so set on pushing a political agenda that she willfully disregards obvious facts.
Or in the same instance; who is so ignorant of the facts that her very presence presiding over the case is a danger to justice itself.