Breaking News! Judges Don’t Like Being Told They’re Wrong & Florida’s Vaccine Mandates – Top 3 Takeaways, September 5th, 2025
Takeaway #1: This is how dumb they think you are
Longtime listeners know that one of my top pet peeves is for our collective intelligence to be insulted. Being a crappy news reporter for a blatantly biased network is one thing. In fact, as far as so-called journalism is concerned, that’s the norm and that’s nothing new. But as I’ve long stated the most pervasive form of bias in news media isn’t what’s reported, but what isn’t. And btw, that’s a two-way street. Leftists and conservative outlets alike do it these days when it fits their agenda. For example, many conservative outlets this week were light, or essentially non-existent on Epstein coverage presumably because President Trump has been dismissive of the topic occupying time in the news cycle (taking attention away from what he believes are his many accomplishments). But as for what was widely reported yesterday – man oh man was our collective intelligence insulted. Headline from NBC News: In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court’s handling of Trump cases. Headline from Fox News: Federal judges anonymously criticize Supreme Court for overturning decisions with emergency rulings. Here’s an excerpt from the NBC story: In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged: Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority. And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation. Boy, aren’t you just moved by NBC’s characterization that these beyond reproach public servants "painstakingly research” law to reach their rulings.
Takeaway #2: What’s our reaction supposed to be to that?
Well, the Supreme Court said your ruling is wrong, off base, and is implied to be unconstitutional, but golly gee Willackers if you went into pain with some law books trying to get to that unconstitutional ruling then it should stick? From the Fox News story citing the NBC story: "It is inexcusable," one judge said of the Supreme Court. "They don’t have our backs." Well, that's fun. There’s a new one. Did you know that the role of the Supreme Court was to “have the backs” not of the constitution but rather lower court judges? I mean, after all they were in pain coming to their decisions don’t you know. So yeah, this is how dumb they think you are. It started with the very premise to the story. NBC News went to some disgruntled federal judges and said are you unhappy that the Supreme Court overturns your decisions? What the heck do you expect for them to say? They they’ve been wrong? They they’ve been out to lunch on their rulings? That they went on some benders and made some mistakes issuing rulings that the Supreme Court was thankfully able to correct? Or did you expect them to actually answer with the truth. That the true painstaking process from a research and ruling standpoint, is and has been, deciding before a even hearing a case that you’re going to rule against Trump and then finding a way to attempt to justify that predetermined ruling? As I illustrated earlier in the week, President Trump’s ultimate win rate in his second term for decided cases has been 69%. However, Trump’s win rate with Democrat-appointed judges has only been 16%. The law isn’t different, just the partisan judges ruling on it with a “painstaking process”. There was one honest judge of the dozen with some fully honest disclosure that was a bit refreshing. From a person described as an Obama appointed judge the quote was this: The whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane. Now, isn’t that the real storyline here? Isn’t that the real headline here? “Obama Appointed Judge Says: Trump Derangement Syndrome is a Real Issue”? But that comment buried pages into the story sure wouldn’t fit the narrative would it? But kudos to that one Obama-appointed judge who was willing answer on the level rather than with ego and a political axe to grind. That judge, whoever they are, doesn’t think you’re as stupid as those who’re reporting the news – including that specific story.
Takeaway #3: Missing the point
Speaking of absurd reporting...what is it that you’ve come across over the past couple of days after Florida’s Surgeon General Dr. Joesph Ladapo announced that the state intends to end all vaccine mandates within the state of Florida? Probably a lot of stuff like this from WPTV headline: Florida educators, infectious disease experts express concerns over ending vaccine requirements. The story follows as the headline suggests that it would, complete with expert commentary and CDC numbers on diseases children are currently mandated to be immunized against (to attend public schools anyway). You know what isn’t in that story, or any story that I’ve come across? Whether it’s appropriate for a government to mandate what goes into the body of a person in the first place? I mean how dare we live in a state, or even a country where the government doesn’t force you to do what the medical establishment says you should do? After all, how dare you have medical choice (unless it’s aborting a baby – of course)? Yes, there’s ample evidence that recommended childhood vaccinations are effective. That misses the entire point. There’s also ample evidence about the food that you should and shouldn’t be eating. Should we ban all unhealthy foods for the greater good? There’s ample evidence that a belief in God and regular adherence to one’s faith leads to better health and societal outcomes. Should we mandate specific faiths proven to be effective? I started today’s takeaways talking about how dumb they think you are. In some cases, they’re so blinded by their implicit biases that they don’t realize how dumb they actually are from a lack of analytical thought.