“The difference is 99.96% vs 99.91%. And the difference is statistically insignificant.”
—
I assume her reasoning was that the number “6” was more than the double of “1” and thus her conclusion.
Or, am I giving her too much credit for even having that much mathematical genius?
This justice has staff attorneys and clerks at her beck and call, not to mention the other Justices themselves. Was no one at the Supreme Court able to explain her error to her in a manner she could understand?
The justices agreeing with her are her intellectual equals thus the mistake is their fact. Same thing for her AA staff.
For the other side to correct her, why step in a minefield?
If I were a conservative justice, I’d let her make the error. Why help the fool?
As troubling as this AA justice Jackson is, it’s equally troubling that her minions allowed the nonsense to go through—fomenting a lie because the cause is more important than the truth. That’s a very vivid sign of what we can expect here.
We better elect a good conservative president in the next few years—Clarence Thomas won’t live forever.
Putting the best light on the claim, if you flip it around to the mortality rate instead of the survival rate, it is 0.04% vs. 0.09% - from that direction “double” is an arguable, but still highly misleading, position.