Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, January 08, 2022

Many on social media criticized and mocked Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch after he incorrectly suggested on Friday that the seasonal flu kills "hundreds of thousands" each year in the United States.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Conservatives loathe intellectuals and they sure as hell didn't put any on the Supreme Court.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-07 06:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Facts and truth won't be allowed to get in the "conservative" activist ideologues way, though.

The average number of deaths per year is ~34,500, though last year's near zero influenza numbers likely pulled that average down.

#2 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-07 08:14 PM | Reply

This pretty much blows Justice Barrett's comment ~that the Supreme Court is not political~ quite out of the water.

This seems to illustrate that Justice Gorsuch is quite willing to live in the alternate reality of the GOP. (who nominated him?)

At a time when we need a strong judicial branch, the Supreme Court puts on a stunning display of its ignorance.

Disheartening.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-07 08:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators" due to the coronavirus. - Sonia Sotomayor

www.politifact.com

So, are they both idiots living in an alternate reality? Or just the one you disagree with politically? (This directed at... yes, I'm gonna say it... both sides.)

#4 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-01-07 08:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

@#4

Wow, for starters, kudos to you for accepting what the site politifact.com researches. Some here have just dismissed that site because they do not agree with what is researched there.

The problem I have with Justice Gorsuch's comment is not the comment itself, but that he is echoing the lies that fmr Pres Trump has proffered. That the exaggerated severity of the flu somehow reduces the problems we face with COVID.

The example you cite with Justice Sotomayor represents a bad fact. And I'll say, she should be better than that.

But the two statements are quite different.

One is a misstatement of a fact. (Justice Sonomayor)

The other is a fealty to a bad source of information. (Justice Gorsuch)


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-07 09:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#4 was deleted quick!

What did it say?!

#6 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-01-07 09:15 PM | Reply

82,842 children admitted to hospital is awful close to 100,000 children in serious condition...

However, 82,000 children hospitalized since April 2020 is not quite the same as 100,000 children in serious condition right now.

If she said "We've had" isntaed of "We had" then she's probably right.

So, technically false, but easily grammatically made true.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-07 10:13 PM | Reply

@#7

... So, technically false, but easily grammatically made true. ...

Yup.

But my main concern is not the factual error, but the apparent political fealty of a Supreme Court Justice.

A fealty so prominent that a Justice of the Supreme Court feels the need to say that the Supreme Court is not a bunch of political hacks.

Why did she feel the need to say that?


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-07 10:35 PM | Reply

@#8

Justice Amy Coney Barrett argues US Supreme Court isn't 'a bunch of partisan hacks'
www.courier-journal.com

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-07 10:39 PM | Reply

Why an active SCOTUS has an active Twitter account does not make sense.

They are at the top of their field, in a lifetime gig. There is no clout to be gained from small Twitter spats, and there is only personal or professional risk for them to be active in any way besides the most neutral or corporate press release.

As a Justice, one is not really an individual "person" anymore, but a brand of judicial thought among eight other justices.

#10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2022-01-07 11:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The other is a fealty to a bad source of information. (Justice Gorsuch)

Your words are meaningless in its bias as usual, there's not much "technical" difference between the two in their numbers.
www.cdc.gov

But Sotomayor stated also COVID deaths are at an all time high, which is false as well.

Given the number of "breakthrough" cases the legitimacy of a mandate falls flat, sure it can protect the vaccinated, but it doesn't seem to be stopping the transmission.

And since many here think Tribe is the end all be all, feel free to read paragraph 2, who its addressed too.
eppc.org

My stance is the lawyers should be giving the SCOTUS the "facts" and then the lawyers can argue the "truth". But clearly in these tribal times the SCOTUS is compromised. Its the end of the Union.

#ThinkForYourself
#StopWithTheTribalism.
#StopTheMandate

#11 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-01-07 11:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Interesting, just investigating this on the HHS website, the current national pediatric COVID census is 3,342 children in "serious condition".

#12 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-01-07 11:35 PM | Reply

@#11 ... Your words are meaningless ...

Why thank-you.

Coming from your current alias, I wear that as a badge of honor.

 

But then you note ...
.... But clearly in these tribal times the SCOTUS is compromised. ...

So you seem to agree with my comment?

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-07 11:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But Et_el told me Gorsuch was really smart!

#14 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-01-08 12:20 AM | Reply

It's always interesting, when scrolling through recent comments, to find I live rent free in the minds of irrelevant anonymous persons.

Especially when they're factual idiots.

#15 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-08 03:13 AM | Reply

I just like poking you because you're an arrogant -------.

#16 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-01-08 04:00 AM | Reply

I'm flattered. Thank you.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-08 04:11 AM | Reply

More lies from the GasLighter...

"Flu kills, I believe, hundreds, thousands of people every year."
twitter.com

#18 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-01-08 01:14 PM | Reply

#18 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Did you even read your own post.

The first response to that tweet debunks it.

Your the worst troll on the DR.

You suck at trolling and write too much bullshht.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-01-08 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It's always interesting, when scrolling through recent comments, to find I live rent free in the minds of irrelevant anonymous persons."

Congratulations to you and Adolf Hitler on that!

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-08 02:03 PM | Reply

Just in case anyone is unclear, covid killed more Americans in 2020 and then again in 2021 than flu did in total during the decade prior.

#21 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-01-08 11:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

though last year's near zero influenza numbers

Covid is sexier. And you cant use influenza to control the masses.

#22 | Posted by boaz at 2022-01-09 08:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

And you cant use influenza to control the masses.

#22 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT

Oh I don't know, BOAZ. I see commercials urging flu shots all the time.

Be outraged. And make sure you don't get one, you free spirit you.

#23 | Posted by Zed at 2022-01-09 08:38 AM | Reply

"control the masses"

I've asked over and over again, and I'll try here - one more time:
Explain this "control" and how it works, please?

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-09 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I live rent free in the minds of irrelevant anonymous persons

Only a slimy ------- lawyer thinks a person is irrelevant. An opinion? Sure. But a person?

#25 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-01-09 09:36 AM | Reply

This is a transcription error. He said "Hundreds, thousands ... "

Sotomayor and Breyer both got tagged for blatant falsehoods. Also we are seeing a conflation of those hospitalized FOR Covid with those hospitalized WITH Covid.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-09 02:48 PM | Reply

#26 The increase in hospitalizations is due to Covid, the FOR and WITH nonsense is dishonest. Cancellations of elective surgeries is hiding some of the impact of Covid.

#27 | Posted by bored at 2022-01-09 03:07 PM | Reply

Gorsuch is supposed to be about facts and the law. When he gets the facts so wrong there is little hope for the law, now or for any other ruling he makes, ever ...

#28 | Posted by catdog at 2022-01-09 03:07 PM | Reply

This is a transcription error. He said "Hundreds, thousands ... "

Even if that were true, he was still drawing a false equivalence that is worthy of ridicule. It's more than fair for government to draw a line somewhere in between the flu and the coronavirus, the latter of which has ten times the mortality rate.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-09 03:08 PM | Reply

@#29 ... Even if that were true ...

The audio does not necessarily indicate a transcription error.

There is a sound between "hundreds" and "thousands."

My listenings indicate the sound may be "of."

It sounds more like "of" than it does a pause, as a comma would indicate.


#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-09 03:17 PM | Reply

That is EXACTLY what I hear in the MP3 and I have posted that previously as well.

Joe's right, too. The entire 'whataboutism' to take the heat off Gorsuch is disingenuous. His very premise is garbage and based on a lie.

#31 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-09 03:22 PM | Reply

@#31

If there were a transcription error, I'd be more concerned about there being a transcription error in the Supreme Court proceedings than I would be about this incident.

That's another reason why I think the word "of" was used, and not a pause for a comma.

#32 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-09 04:09 PM | Reply

#32 Quibbling over whether this was a transcription error plays into the typical GOP/JeffJ playbook. Get you sidetracked on some ridiculous detail to avoid talking about the actual issue. I dont give a ---- if Gorsuch actually said "hundreds, thousands." His "point" is ludicrous.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-09 04:22 PM | Reply

Joe hits the nail on the head as usual.

#34 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-01-09 04:34 PM | Reply

The accuracy of the facts and exactly what he said aside, what is so controversial about the comment?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 05:01 PM | Reply

@#33 ... I dont give a ---- if Gorsuch actually said "hundreds, thousands." His "point" is ludicrous. ...

I agree.

Justice Gorsuch seems to be buying into, and continuing to propagate from the bench of the Supreme Court, a far-right conspiracy prevarication, one that has been proffered by some (including the very top) in the Republican party, one that has been proffered to try to make COVID seem less than it is.

Ludicrous. Yup.


#36 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-01-09 05:09 PM | Reply

This is regarding Biden allowing OSHA to impose a vaccine mandate onto employers, correct?

How is a question regarding current and past vaccine mandates such a bad question?

#37 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 05:19 PM | Reply

I'm glad that we fact check comments like this from a supreme court justice and not allow them to get away with making them. At least in the public, it's being addressed.

Perhaps it gave the chance for someone testifying in support of this mandate to strengthen their own argument.

#38 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 05:58 PM | Reply

I just like poking you because you're an arrogant -------.

#16 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

You think et_al is arrogant?

via GIPHY

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-09 06:45 PM | Reply

How is a question regarding current and past vaccine mandates such a bad question?

Because his suggestion is that the current response to Covid is unreasonable because no vax mandates were implemented for the flu, despite the fact that covid is more deadly than the flu by several orders of magnitude. It is normal for governmental response to crises to be commensurate with the severity of said crises. Implicit in Gorsuch's question is that no such scale exists or should exist, which is absurd. If he were simply asking the question to allow it to be knocked down and defeated, i would agree with you, but anyone who pays attention to Gorsuch knows that's not what was happening.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-09 08:08 PM | Reply

Sotomayor's comments were far more ridiculous.

#41 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-09 08:44 PM | Reply

Another deflection. Post a thread about it, if you haven't already.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-09 09:07 PM | Reply

Sotomayor's comments were far more ridiculous.

#41 | Posted by BellRinger

They were both wrong, but only one was on the side of current epidemiology of their perspective virus.

And it wasn't that dumbass Gorsuch.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-09 09:24 PM | Reply

I saw this on the nooner and I believe it was intended for this page:

"Re Sotomayor, there's a Gorsuch thread. An idiot brought her up as a "whataboutism" and deflection."

Look, idiot, pointing out the obvious parallel between two judges who made almost identical gaffes while hearing the same case is not a "whataboutism" or deflection. You're just spazzing out because you've been confronted with the hypocrisy/cognitive dissonance of people making a mountain out of one gaffe, and using it to attack the judge's character, and not the other.

#204 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2022-01-09 10:29 PM | FLAG:

#44 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-09 10:32 PM | Reply

"Implicit in Gorsuch's question"

It shouldn't have to come down to your interpretation of what he implied.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 10:36 PM | Reply

You tell us what he meant, then, Eberly, because it's pretty ------- clear to everyone else.

#46 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-09 10:40 PM | Reply

No one with any sense will engage Eberly again.

POSTED BY YAV just a few hours ago

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 10:43 PM | Reply

"Sotomayor's comments were far more ridiculous."

Far more ridiculous?!? Are you trolling, or actually that stupid?

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-09 10:43 PM | Reply

"No one with any sense will engage Eberly again."

Well, for the record, I have no sense.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-09 10:44 PM | Reply

Are you having a bad day, Yav?

It seems like you're having a bad day.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 10:44 PM | Reply

"It shouldn't have to come down to your interpretation of what he implied. "

That's only if something is said in a vacuum. This wasn't.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-09 10:47 PM | Reply

Okay...I'll take a temporary break from picking on Yav.

I don't know exactly what he means, exactly.

I'm not predicting anything with regard to Gorsuch with his comment.

But you're all acting like you know what's the appropriate line of questioning for a SCOTUS member.

What's so bad about referencing previous vaccine mandates (or lack thereof) on a case where one party is asking for a.....wait for it......a vaccine mandate?

Or maybe Gorsuch is Trump. He tried to deliberately throw out a false number in the hopes nobody would notice so he could pander to redneck trailer trash.

Yeah...that's the most likely scenario....Gorsuch is worried about what red neck trailer trash thinks about him and his position on COVID.

#52 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 10:52 PM | Reply

Far more ridiculous?!? Are you trolling, or actually that stupid?

#48 | Posted by Danforth

He doesn't regularly get his bellrung by being ridiculous.

#53 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-09 10:53 PM | Reply

What's so bad about referencing previous vaccine mandates (or lack thereof) on a case where one party is asking for a.....wait for it......a vaccine mandate?

If they're not comparable (and easily found to not be with simple research done by a large staff paid to do so...) then it shows partisan intent or lack of said research.

As a lay person it takes very very little effort to find those numbers. It's a pretty absurd pile to step in for a man with his resources.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-09 10:56 PM | Reply

51

what do you mean? You have a sentence from Gorsuch.....what else?

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 10:56 PM | Reply

That's only if something is said in a vacuum. This wasn't.
Good luck engaging.

Sorry I made that mistake. Old habits.
Developing new habits takes time.

#56 | Posted by YAV at 2022-01-09 10:58 PM | Reply

-If they're not comparable (and easily found to not be with simple research done by a large staff paid to do so...) then it shows partisan intent or lack of said research.

It's about allowing OSHA to have the legal authority to impose and enforce a vaccine mandate onto employers.

It's about the law and the constitutionality of a law.

It's not all about a game of gotcha with regards to vaccine stats.

#57 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:00 PM | Reply

"You have a sentence from Gorsuch.....what else?"

Context.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-09 11:02 PM | Reply

-Sorry I made that mistake

Which mistake was that? I'm seeing many you've made over the last couple days.

Nice knowing you, Yav.

#59 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:04 PM | Reply

58

You're going to lecture me on the context? I'm the only one taking that seriously.

Who else is considering context besides me?

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:05 PM | Reply

I think Gorsuch teed it up for the person testifying before them so they had the opportunity to hammer home why the mandate was necessary.

Legally speaking, it's a big deal to hand this level of power and enforcement to OSHA. It's going to get a ton of scrutiny.

I think maybe there is a little too much drama about this.

but that's considering the "context" of it all.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:09 PM | Reply

"I think Gorsuch teed it up..."

By stating misinformation?!?

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-09 11:18 PM | Reply

"Who else is considering context besides me?"

Everyone who suggested it's dangerous Gorsuch doesn't know what he's talking about.

#63 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-09 11:23 PM | Reply

by referring to flu deaths.

If he had got the number right, would this be such an issue?

some say yes for going there in the first place.

But they're wrong. Who is Gorsuch trying to fool with incorrect numbers like that?

The other members of the SCOTUS? Hardly. the person testifying? Nobody, including the ----- on this blog, were fooled.

Again, how do you completely avoid any past vaccine mandates when OSHA is asking to enforce a vaccine mandate?

Like I said.....it was probably a win for the person testifying that he did that.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:26 PM | Reply

-Everyone who suggested it's dangerous Gorsuch doesn't know what he's talking about.

Good thing it's not important that anybody here knows what they are talking about.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:27 PM | Reply

It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, what matters is does he still make this argument now that he knows the facts.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-09 11:30 PM | Reply

"If he had got the number right, would this be such an issue?"

I'm going with yes.

Because then he would be parroting the right-wing alternate facts that "It's No Worse Than The Flu, LOL"

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-09 11:32 PM | Reply

The difference you should all care about (if you really cared) would be that Gorsuch is not running for anything. He has zero obligation to work for someone else peddling lies about COVID.

I've never criticized any member of the SCOTUS in my life.

#68 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:33 PM | Reply

"I've never criticized any member of the SCOTUS in my life."

Here, have a Coke.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-09 11:34 PM | Reply

Gorsuch leans right. Big surprise.

Everybody expects that.

I think you're all thinking everyone who doesn't agree with you about COVID is like an anti-semite in hiding...believing there are jews everywhere plotting to take over.

That's a lot of paranoia.

It's fun to watch, actually.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:42 PM | Reply

The difference you should all care about (if you really cared) would be that Gorsuch is not running for anything. He has zero obligation to work for someone else peddling lies about COVID.

No, he just has a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court.

Do you really think you're 'this is fine' --------- convinces anyone?

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-09 11:44 PM | Reply

71

Yeah, including you.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:46 PM | Reply

Just when I think some folks can be logical...they let something like this get into their heads.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:48 PM | Reply

I'm jumping off now...but let me reiterate I don't know what's in Gorsuch's head nor can I explain exactly what he meant.

You're all sure he did it deliberately.

Everybody I've seen deliberately lie about stats related to COVID had personal gratifying reasons. They run blogs or sites, or they're pandering to their political base and they have an election to win......in some cases a higher office to win.

Forgive me if I won't jump to such a dramatic conclusion on this one.

or don't

You all can be wrong every single day and keep coming back with facts and outrage.....the next.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-09 11:55 PM | Reply

Yeah, including you.

#72 | POSTED BY EBERLY

WTF does that even mean?

You're all sure he did it deliberately.

I never said that. Not even remotely.

#75 | Posted by jpw at 2022-01-10 12:06 AM | Reply

"some say yes for going there in the first place."

Not me. I just say don't go there if you don't know the difference between one year's worth and seven.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-10 12:20 AM | Reply

I can't really tell if Gorsuch said, "hundreds, thousands" or "hundreds of thousands" from the short clip I heard. I'd have to see/hear the quote in context. Was he trying to emphasis there aren't than many people killed by the flu each year? Then I think he said, "hundreds, thousands". Or was he trying to emphasize that a fairly large number of people are killed by the flu annually? In that case I think he said, "hundreds of thousands".

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-01-10 12:59 AM | Reply

Fun but sloppy policy arguments. reason.com

The OSHA case is about the scope of power granted by Congress to the Executive. There's not a "bright line" answer. That's where the argument is not policy. Ya'll chew on that for a while.

#78 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-10 01:08 AM | Reply

Gal,

I think the article I linked has hyperlinks to both the written and audio transcripts. Iirc the audio is at a little less than 1:50:00

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-10 01:20 AM | Reply

"I can't really tell if Gorsuch said, "hundreds, thousands" or "hundreds of thousands""

Transcription reads "hundreds of thousands".

It also makes sense: who would start with "hundreds" when enumerating annual national flu deaths?!?

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-10 01:25 AM | Reply

"The OSHA case is about the scope of power granted by Congress to the Executive. There's not a "bright line" answer."

This is something the Judicial is all to eager to take a pass on.

It should be illegal for Congress to authorize use of military force. They should be required to Declare War. Source: Constitution.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-10 01:26 AM | Reply

Transcription reads ...

Written transcripts are the product of the reporter. They sometimes make mistakes in their interpretation. Not a revelation. In the end irrelevant.

#82 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-10 01:32 AM | Reply

It should be illegal for Congress to authorize use of military force. They should be required to Declare War. Source: Constitution.

#81 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-01-10 01:26 AM

Yep. Spot on.

#83 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-10 01:36 AM | Reply

#81

How does "authorizing" shooting people and blowing up s**t differ from "declaring war" to shoot people and blow up s**t?

#84 | Posted by et_al at 2022-01-10 01:47 AM | Reply

"In the end irrelevant."

You're right; the fact he started his enumeration with "hundreds" is a much more telling answer. At this point, if he chooses to "correct" the record, it'll be to save face.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-10 01:55 AM | Reply

How does "authorizing" shooting people and blowing up s**t differ from "declaring war" to shoot people and blow up s**t?

#84 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2022-01-10 01:47 AM

Up until WWII, the process was straightforward. We were at war or we weren't. Congress declared war, or it didn't.

Nowadays we have crap like AUMF which is half-assed as hell and is the reason why we've come away mostly unsuccessful in all of our military adventures since WWII.

#86 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-10 01:58 AM | Reply

#81
How does "authorizing" shooting people and blowing up s**t differ from "declaring war" to shoot people and blow up s**t?

#84 | POSTED BY ET_AL

It doesn't.

That's why Congress should have to declare War for it to happen.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-10 01:59 AM | Reply

The only mechanism by which Congress was intended to find the authority to use military force is through an Act of War.

I hope I make my point of view clear. Not exactly a laywer...

Functionally, if you'd like to suggest that there's no meaningful (de facto) difference between the manifestations of the various AUMFs and War, I'd tend to agree with you.

These "Police Actions" etc. have become lazy and sloppy. Some might argue NATO expansion fits that bill. All brakes no gas.

My thoughts on NATO expansion are NATO has been a better future than whatever it's ever stood against. But I think expansionism has run its course.

Mostly, Russia just needs a hug. I daresay Russia needs a woman to rule them once again.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-10 02:06 AM | Reply

"Nowadays we have crap like AUMF which is half-assed as hell and is the reason why we've come away mostly unsuccessful in all of our military adventures since WWII."

Two other important factors as well.

Previously wars were financed by the sale of war bonds. So much of the cost was borne directly by the people. The second is conscription. Everyone was going, or at least doing something in support of the war.

GWOT is a great example. Everyone was in, for about the first six months. When it became clear that there wasn't going to be a decisive victory in Afghanistan, the government sold the idea of Iraq as being a terrorist have, in the hopes that there could be a decisive victory there.

It's kinda like COVID. When the government realizes that the expected outcome is unlikely to occur, they double down on the pain. If it's painful, it's gotta work, right?

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-01-10 06:01 AM | Reply

I think Gorsuch teed it up for the person testifying before them so they had the opportunity to hammer home why the mandate was necessary.

Then you're a ------- idiot who isn't worth engaging on the matter.

#90 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-10 08:06 AM | Reply

90

Such rage. Where does it come from?

I didn't touch you Joe.

I noticed lawyer joe chose to attack me rather than engage an actual lawyer on this thread.

Telling.

I wonder; does he agree with Et al? Not understand?

I won't attack Joe in kind, though.

#91 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-10 08:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Don't justices ask questions as if from the point of view of the "public". Sort of grapefruits to the lawyers, but ensuring that certain parts of the conversation are addressed. I haven't heard the audio or the context of the statement, but could this have fit that view?

#92 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2022-01-10 11:37 AM | Reply

SC just released modified transcript of his quote.

I will agree with Danforth though, saying "100's" as your starting point is a weird way to talk about the flu.

You'd think you'd start in the thousands lol......

#93 | Posted by brass30 at 2022-01-10 12:07 PM | Reply

A common fable amongst the right.

I hear it in almost every bar I go into in WV.
And it is absolutely false, unless you are talking
by the DECADE. But you know, facts and statistics
are very hard for the Right to comprehend. They'd
rather just yell "Let's Go Brandon!" or "Lock Her Up!"

Mob Rule rules on the Right...

Q: What's worse than a nation full of morons
who are sure that they are right?

A: That same portion of the nation extremely over armed...

#94 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-01-10 12:20 PM | Reply

"That same portion of the nation extremely over armed" They "we have guns" argument. The next question should be "are you going to fight the US military with those guns?"

#95 | Posted by Brennnn at 2022-01-10 02:47 PM | Reply

Don't justices ask questions as if from the point of view of the "public". Sort of grapefruits to the lawyers, but ensuring that certain parts of the conversation are addressed.

Sometimes. But it's almost always in a manner that coincides with that justice's politics, especially in the case of Gorsuch. It's incredible that anyone would suggest he was doing that here.

#96 | Posted by JOE at 2022-01-10 03:15 PM | Reply

96

no, that question was posed to anyone who has the intelligence to answer it, Joe.

Not you.

He'll wait for someone who knows at least something about this to answer.

You can move along.

#97 | Posted by eberly at 2022-01-10 04:45 PM | Reply

This is Sotomayor:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

#98 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-10 04:51 PM | Reply

"This is Sotomayor out of context"

FTFY.

More to the point, why do you purposely ignore the context?

#99 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-10 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"SC just released modified transcript of his quote."

The official "let's save face" move.

Now the only downside is we have a SCOTUS judge whose first guess of national deaths due to influenza is ~990 or less.

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-10 05:15 PM | Reply

Now do Sotomayor. Gotta move a decimal point for that.

#101 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-01-10 05:17 PM | Reply

"Now do Sotomayor. Gotta move a decimal point for that."

At least she understood the concept.

His "point" shows he doesn't get it. Either he's an effing idiot ("hundreds"), or a kool-aid drinker ("hundreds of thousands").

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-01-10 05:32 PM | Reply

The Supreme Court is supposed to argue the constitutionality of legislation. It shouldn't matter a bit whether it was one person who died or one million, the constitutionality shouldn't change.

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-01-10 07:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It shouldn't matter a bit whether it was one person who died or one million"

Sure it does.
If a million people are at risk of death, that gets directly to the General Welfare.
One person? Not so much.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-01-10 08:11 PM | Reply

How about one drop?

Idiot.

#105 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-01-10 08:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort