https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-shouldnt-be-optional/
In a tumultuous few weeks, the Supreme Court has ignored the scientific evidence underlying safe abortion, the need to slow climate change, and the value of gun safety laws. It is alarming that the justices have now indicated a willingness to consider a voting rights case next term, given Chief Justice John Roberts’ feelings on what he calls the “sociological gobbledygook” of research into the effects of gerrymandering.
The promise of democracy is being sorely tested by the recent injustices leveled by the Supreme Court’s conservative justices in cases involving health, welfare and the future of the planet. Over and over this term, their decisions have put industry, religion (specifically, a conservative strain of Christianity) and special interests above facts. They have devalued the role of expertise.
Disregarding science and evidence is a terrible shift for the highest court in the land, which once safeguarded the health of the public in rulings that upheld state vaccine mandates and safe food production. This is in contrast to the way our current conservative justices have viewed COVID restrictions, whether exempting religious groups from bans on group gatherings or barring vaccine mandates for large businesses. Even in decisions that uphold basic public health tenets, conservative justices have spouted misleading scientific claims. In his dissent on the Court’s decision to not take on New York’s vaccine mandate law for health care workers, Justice Clarence Thomas laments that the workers demanding a religious exemption objected to available COVID vaccines “because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children,” wording that obscures that the cells were grown in a lab based on elective abortions decades ago, and also are used in the development of routine drugs.
This shift away from our social responsibilities for health and welfare is one that we fear will lead to needless suffering and death. We urge the Court to change its reasoning—to value statistics, to value research and to understand how ignoring it in making decisions is contrary to common decency and their responsibility as jurists to the people of the United States.
In their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the majority justices ignored what we and others have repeatedly reported: abortion is safe—much safer than pregnancy itself—and that denying people access to legal abortions leads to poorer physical and mental health outcomes, not to mention economic outcomes. In overturning Roe v. Wade, and shunting abortion rights to states, the justices who voted in favor of Dobbs put religion and the status of a mass of cells over the health and welfare of actual people who make up approximately 50 percent of the U.S. population. They also indicated their disregard for the medical profession and the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship that the justices in the majority will no doubt continue to enjoy after their ruling becomes practice.
Science! = safe and effective.
Science! is the new religion of leftists.
Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
I went through an agnostic stage many years ago, and I use to troll religious people in forums who were critical of other religions by saying: "Their religion isn't the only stupid religion."
Liberalism is the god of the godless, and Science! is its doctrine.
Some might say, "well, science isn't stupid and it definitely isn't a religion. It's measurable and doesn't discriminate. It saves lives. It makes the world a better place. It explains everything. It's the truth." To which I would say: "Sounds like a religion to me."
Personally, I don't care what anyone believes. Because, after all, it's not what you know, it's who you believe. So we all believe in something. The essence of the human consciousness is belief.
But seeing is only believing if you can't touch, smell, hear, taste or experience it.
Faith is the fundamental component to everything. Our entire system is based on faith. Science! is an attempt to extract faith from the equation, but Science requires just as much faith as any other religion. Furthermore, faith in what the scientists (i.e. experts) say is no different than having faith in your priest, or shaman.
The point I'm getting at is that liberalism is an hyper-aggressive religion that is power hungry. Religious history shows us that most religions are this way. Expect to see power plays in the near future that look to eliminate errors made by humans and that allow Science! to make the world safe, effective and more inclusive (i.e. more liberal).
Reading between the lines in the above cited article, it is clear what they are insinuating: human choices are obsolete when they don't side with Science! and the liberal agenda. So therefore, why not just automate the antiquated judges on the Supreme Court with AI who are devout followers of liberalism and its scientific doctrine?
For those who doubt the religiosity of Science!, all you need to do is ask yourself how every social agenda that liberalism favors is miraculously supported by the Science! Because, some of us remember when the science wasn't always politically correct. And public opinion wasn't liberal.
At some point in the future a priority of liberalism will be to automate the Supreme Court with AIs programmed with Science!
