You may have heard that Justice Sonia Sotomayor falsely claimed that 100,000 children are currently hospitalized, and in serious condition, with Covid. That number is wildly wrong.
Justice Stephen Breyer made a similarly inaccurate statement, claiming there were 750 million new cases of Covid in the country. (He may have simply confused thousands and millions. You know how it is in Washington. Thousands, millions, billions, trillions. They all run together.)
Will they be banned from social media for spreading Covid misinformation? (I hope Supreme Court justices have the sense not to be on social media.)
Where did they get these numbers, and why didn’t their B.S. detectors go off when they heard them? They should have the sense to realize those numbers are wildly inflated.
The bigger question is why these very smart, very well-educated people were not only misinformed, but confident enough in their incorrect facts to repeat them in the Supreme Court! Two minutes on a search engine could have solved this.
They would never have done the same with a legal precedent. They would have had their facts straight, and heads would roll among their staff if they had been misled.
But this? Facts don’t seem to matter when you’re making an argument about Covid.
I understand how this works with the normal population. People are too willing to believe things that confirm their biases, and everybody knows that we all live in different realities, with different fears and different facts. For some, armed insurrectionists killed police officers on Jan. 6. For others, Donald Trump really won the election and it was stolen from him.
But shouldn’t Supreme Court justices be smarter than this?
QUOTE: The bigger question is why these very smart, very well-educated people were not only misinformed, but confident enough in their incorrect facts to repeat them in the Supreme Court!
Fox News, Washington Post, Associated Press, et. al. should be applauded for calling this out. It’s great to see this because fact-based and accurate information from our government leaders is critical. The public needs to have confidence in their statement and judgments. It will be interesting to see what response will come (if any) from court on this matter.
QUOTE: They would have had their facts straight, and heads would roll among their staff if they had been misled. Facts don’t seem to matter when you’re making an argument about Covid.
Government leaders have gotten sloppy with their public statements about Covid. As with Justice Sotomayor, there have been numerous inaccurate statements made by Trump, Pence and other government officials. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much consequences to these individuals or their staffs when they get it wrong.
QUOTE: But shouldn’t Supreme Court justices be smarter than this?
Unequivocally YES! We should question the judgment of a Supreme Court justice when they get something so drastically wrong. As we should, when a President publicly endorses Covid recommendations from a doctor that claims medicine is made from alien DNA.
…when a President publicly endorses Covid recommendations from a doctor that claims medicine is made from alien DNA.
Okay, I almost spit my tea out on that one. Apparently this is a reference to Dr. Stella Immanuel, who has some fairly crazy views.
I’m always suspicious of words like “endorse.” Sometimes it just means “retweeted,” and sometimes it means “endorsed something sane this otherwise crazy person did.”
I hope you didn’t spit on any one…that would be rather nasty and embarrassing. 😉
Relative to Dr. Stella Immanuel, during a press briefing Trump said ….“I can tell you this: She was on air, along with many other doctors —they were big fans of hydroxychloroquine, and I thought she was very impressive.”. As well, Trump retweeted her recommendations about Covid. Her statements, relative to Covid, were considered false.
So parse words if you like, but the point was that we should question the judgement of those in government authority that would indulge in such behavior.
There’s no question that Trump can be reasonably criticized for recommending / praising things and people that seem — on not enough reflection — to go along with his story. It’s an unfortunate aspect of his personality that I thought most people would just accept and get over. E.g., “yeah, that’s Trump for you.”
Everybody knows people like that, right? You know when to take them seriously and when not.
It’s possible Sotomayor has the same sort of tendency, and that she is much more careful about what she writes than about what she says. I don’t know enough about her to say.
Despite personal idiosyncrasies, would you say it’s necessary for government officials like Sotomayor and Trump to be as accurate as possible when acting in their official capacity? As well, held accountable when they are not?
Yes, of course. But you can’t always get everything you want.
It would be reasonable, IMO, for someone to defend Sotomayor by saying, “Okay, so she slipped up with a number, but when the chips are down, she’s solid. Her opinions are all very good.”
And I would say, okay, yes, but you have to admit that this quote indicates she has a bias towards the fantastical and improbable. At least on this subject.
Of course there’s no question that Trump has a bias towards the fantastical and improbable. That’s been well established for years.
I don’t expect government leaders to be infallible. Yet, I don’t think making excuses for them is acceptable when they err. They should be held accountable and have to explain their statements/behavior. That helps determine if it was an unfortunate mistake or attempted deception and appropriate consequences.
That said, it will be interesting to see if the court provides a rationale for Sotomayor’s faux pas. As well, to observe the public’s reaction to her error as compared to the errors of other government officials relative to Covid misinformation.
Better her to have a wrong opinion/fact about something she has no control or dominion over rather than someone who does have the power to say, “It’s under control.” “It will just go away.”
Whatever.
That is probably right, but that’s not how I was thinking about the problem. My concern is ….
(1) Where is she getting this bogus information (is she limiting herself to only certain sources), and
(2) Why didn’t she have some internal mechanism to catch it?
I would be very disappointed if Supreme Court justices exclusively listened to partisan sources, and even more disappointed if they believed them uncritically.
What we know so far is the information was incorrect. Yet, it’s likely best not to speculate too much beyond that. It could be a number of things. That’s why I’m hoping there’s a response from the court because it would be helpful to understand more details.
This is hardly something she has “no control or dominion over.” She made this statement in the context of arguments about the necessity of the vaccine mandate. She’s going to vote on that in the very near future, and she’s evidently going to vote based on that type of concern, and not the actual controlling legal structure.
It was bad when Trump did it. It needs no defense. It’s bad when Sotomayor does it, but somehow it’s “less bad” or “yebbut Trump” or something.
QUOTE: It’s bad when Sotomayor does it, but somehow it’s “less bad” or “yebbut Trump” or something.
For me, it’s bad when any government leader does it. So, everyone is fair game. Funny thing, as much as there is a “yebbut Trump…”, some curiously omit his behavior…when it’s evidently apropos.
Is it omission to not talk about Trump every time you mention someone else’s errors?
I suppose it depends.
Well Greg gave NO FREAKING CONTEXT. Sorry I don’t have so much free time so as to pay attention to every fart and giggle that happens in Washington, but I don’t. Mr. Crowhill did not mention where this was allegedly said.
He mentions that he is wondering if she will be banned on social media, so I was wondering if she said it on a platform … because that is why Twitter bans people… when someone uses the platform to incite rebellion or repeatedly spread false Covid info. I did hear Jack’s interview with Rogan a few years ago and he made it clear. Twitter cares about what people say on Twitter and not what they post elsewhere or say in public etc.