The Supreme Court of the United States this week slashed Joe Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan, did away with affirmative action, and upheld the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression. In dissenting from the majority in both cases, the Court’s liberal justices relied on plainly inaccurate claims.
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the Court ruled that race-conscious admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. She cited an Association of American Medical Colleges study that argues for the “critical importance of diversity in the medical profession.” Affirmative action, Jackson claimed, doubles the chance of black infant survival: “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live, and not die.”
The study, however, finds that black infants have a 99.6 percent survival rate with black doctors and a 99.8 percent survival rate with white doctors. What Jackson misinterpreted when she claimed that the black infant survival rate “doubles” with a black doctor is the discrepancy that more white doctors are in Neonatal intensive care units (NICU), where babies are less likely to survive. If a black baby has a black doctor, it’s likely because that baby is not in a NICU, which of course yields higher survival rates.
Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Sonia...
WASHINGTON, April 23 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s years-long campaign to undermine faith in U.S. elections has gained broad traction with the American public, a Reuters/Ipsos poll shows, p...