Search the Lounge


« Washburn Seeks Legal Writing VAP | Main | Hiring Announcement: Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law »

January 24, 2022


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It is unfortunate that, like Justice Sotomayor, so many are basing their positions on their emotions, and prejudices (here political) and not on "the science."

J. Sotomayor reportedly was concerned that a condition might render her especially vulnerable to COVID, and therefore, was especially concerned by the refusal by Gorsuch to "mask up" as you put it.

This concern, like the number of children affected by COVID, involves a series of presumptions by J. Sotomayor that may not be even close to the empirical truth, and worse, some that are not scientifically supported.

Her theory must be that, although triple vaxxed, she is vulnerable to COVID infection. Although Gorsuch is also triple vaxxed, he too is not only vulnerable to COVID infection, but very likely to transmit it.

Her theory must also be that, also regularly tested, these tests may not be able to detect COVID infection.

Her theory must also be that the environment in which she would be with J. Gorsuch has not been retrofitted in any way to provide additional protection against an airborne virus (ventilation, etc.)

Her theory must also be that the absence of a mask on Gorsuch's face materially affects the likelihood that she will be infected by COVID, whether she wears a mask or not.

Let's just pause and consider J. Sotyomayor's reasoning:

1. Three doses of vaccines don't prevent infection or transmitting the virus;

2. Testing is unable to provide any assurance, and

3. The SCOTUS can't prepare its workspace to protect person who work therein; and

4. Wearing a mask herself cannot ward off the virus if one person anywhere near her does not wear a mask;

5. A "mask" worn by Gorsuch during the relatively brief time she is near Gorsuch (as compared with her entire waking hours) will ward off the virus.

Empathy, indeed, is what we should feel for J. Sotomayor.


Just to add to understanding J. Sotomayor's empathetic perception of the threat to her, she is reported (in the transcript) to have stated, during oral argument:

"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Why is the human being not like a machine if it's spewing a virus, blood-borne viruses? Are you questioning Congress's power or desire that OSHA do this?"


Oh, and BTW, one suspects Lubet knows better than to state that " in a venue where he is literally above the law."

A J of the SCOTUS is not "above the law."

This is, of course, not even close to being accurate.

Of course, we must emphasize with Mr. Lubet, who apparently believes that his friends can prevent him from "catching" COVID 19 and that he can do the same for them: simply by wearing a "mask."


Just say that Gorsuch is an idiot and be done with it, nothing more is necessary.



Columbia University, BA
Harvard University, JD
University of Oxford, Doctor of Philosophy, Marshall Scholar

His doctoral thesis concerned the morality of assisted suicide

Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, 1995 to 2005,

Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2006 until appointment to SCOTUS

Clearly, ChicagoD, you are in a position to call this man an "idiot." Your record of accomplishment in intellectual work of the highest order must tower over almost every human on the planet. Right?

See, here's the deal, ok? Calling someone an idiot under these circumstances seems to sort of imply that you are projecting.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad