Untrue Covid Arguments Shattered Faith in SCOTUS

WALENSKY: Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta. With regard to severe illness and death, they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.

BUCK: That was back in… What was that now? That was back in August, I believe, right?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: August 5th, Rochelle Walensky. Welcome back to the Clay and Buck show. Vaccines can’t prevent transmission! So they’ve known that. Then what was the basis for the mandate, exactly, because they were also telling us — remember Biden? — it’s your patriotic duty. That is when he is awake enough to read off the prompter. And you say, “Hold on a second. Why is it a duty to protect others if it doesn’t actually protect others?”

And now are we really going to accept the pretense? There are two other arguments they’re trying now. This is what always happens. They’re wrong, and then all of a sudden, they change the basis for their wrongness, right? The Fauciites will say, “Okay, it’s really about making sure that you are protected. This is for your own good!” Well, hold on a second. There are a lot of people for whom the vaccine, especially if they have natural immunity, “their own good” ain’t good enough.”

If you’re 35 years old and just in any kind of shape, honestly, unless you’re severely ill, you may decide you don’t want to do it. So that rationale is breaks down. The other rationale, Clay, that they’re trotting out here is, “Oh, but the unvaccinated fill up the hospitals because event people from being able to get cardiac care.” Let’s just look at this rationally for a second. A year ago, there were basically no vaccines, okay?

No vaccines, and people were getting sick at unprecedented levels with a much more dangerous virus. We didn’t have hospitals unable to provide care. The overrunning-of-the-hospital thing has never happened. Hospitals have been stretched, they’ve had to expand, but they’ve had to do that for a long time for bad flu seasons, other things too. I just feel like their arguments now don’t add up and I’m not the only one. There’s a guy in the Wall Street Journal on the mandates who’s a Nobel Prize winner who’s saying, “Yeah, this is just all nonsense now.”

CLAY: Yeah, and he makes a really strong case. In fact, I’m gonna unpack this a little bit more because you and I were so disgusted — and I would say I was particularly disgusted — by the untruths that peppered the oral arguments surrounding the Biden vaccine mandate discussion in the Supreme Court, particularly when Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “We have,” and I’m reading a directed quote from her, “over a hundred thousand children in serious condition, many on ventilators.”

I bet there’s not a hundred kids on ventilators in this country right now. There are only 3,500 kids that are hospitalized with covid right now in the country, period. And, Buck, as we know, a vast majority of those kids, based on data, are likely to be hospitalized with covid, meaning they’re in the hospital with something else and they have tested positive for covid. So all of this madness…

And then as we talked about, too, Justice Steven Breyer seemed to believe that if people would just get vaccinated, the 750,000 new cases that are happening every day would cease to exist. It’s a level of misapprehension and fundamental dishonesty if they know that what they’re saying is untrue. It’s so scary to me that the Supreme Court justices could be this poorly informed.

BUCK: As an institution, people lost faith in the intellectual level of some of the Supreme Court justices that are making these decisions after their covid arguments. That’s what really happened there, folks.

CLAY: No doubt.

BUCK: They’re not well informed enough to even be engaged in a debate, never mind to be engaged in what is effectively the making of law in this issue.