Scientific American delivers a scathing article about the theologists holding the majority in the US Supreme Court. It’s so good, and so tightly written, that it’s difficult to pull an excerpt without wanting to also include the lead in and follow up. I’ll tempt you with some opening paragraphs, but the article is brilliant and deserves to be read.
“In five instances, Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion confused nitrogen oxide, a pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, with nitrous oxide, better known as laughing gas.
You can’t make this stuff up. This repeated mistake in the 5–4 decision exemplifies a high court not just indifferent to facts but contemptuous of them.”
#supremecourt #ScientificAmerican #corruption #failingempire
@MissConstrue "This repeated mistake in the 5–4 decision exemplifies a high court not just indifferent to facts but contemptuous of them."
Does it? Or does it just mean he's mixing up two similar words, but understands the underlying concept?
I read through the linked articles; I think the second
@codebyjeff well the key is to realize what the job of the Court actually IS.
The Supreme Court is not there to make scientific judgments. It rules on law, not scientific fact. It has neither the expertise nor the authority to wade into scientific questions.
This example really emphasizes exactly that.
So yeah, he's mixing up similar words, but it doesn't actually matter to their ruling. It's a matter beside the question actually before them.
In other words, because of how the Court actual functions, they don't address the underlying concept in the first place.
Far too many people don't understand matters of civics as in the role of their own Supreme Court.
