Select Page

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Uses Fake Medical Data to Justify Woke Opinion

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Uses Fake Medical Data to Justify Woke Opinion

We all know the mainstream media is controlled by “woke” liberals, but just how prevalent have their dangerous ideals become? 

Last month, a couple of bogus statistics brought to light by a Supreme Court ruling reveal the ways in which wokeism (liberal progressive ideology) has infiltrated the medical industry.

On June 29th, in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the Supreme Court decided with a vote of 6-3 that race can no longer be a factor in college admissions (click here to read more). The vote fell along ideological lines, with conservative justices supporting the student advocacy group’s argument that race-based admissions policies are unfair to white and Asian students.

The court’s three liberal members argued in favor of affirmative action policies, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson insisting that racial diversity leads to the “betterment” of students and communities. To defend her claim that racial diversity “saves lives” and is necessary for “marginalized communities,” Jackson included the following two statistics in her dissenting opinion:

1. “For high-risk Black newborns, having a Black physician more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live.”

2. “Research shows that Black physicians are more likely to accurately assess Black patients’ pain tolerance and treat them accordingly,” including “prescribing them appropriate amounts of pain medicine.” 

These stats come from an amicus brief filed by lawyers representing the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC represents all accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada and determines the information our future doctors will learn in school.

Claim #1 is sourced from a 2020 study conducted by George Mason University Professor Brad Greenwood. The study found that Black newborns are between 0.13% and 0.2% more likely to survive if they have a black pediatrician. The study found no correlation between Black newborns and Black obstetricians and did not include the verbiage “high-risk,” though it did show a higher mortality rate for white newborns with black doctors.

Claim #2 is sourced from four separate studies – none of which link patient outcomes to the race of the physician, but all of which note Black patients’ historic problems with chronic pain management. 

So did the AAMC’s lawyers misunderstand these studies? Unlikely. It appears the lawyers invented or skewed the data to align more closely with woke philosophy. Keep in mind the amicus brief was submitted to the Supreme Court in favor of maintaining affirmative action admissions policies. 

We can almost excuse Jackson for believing this information given the supposed integrity of the AAMC, but we cannot ignore the broader implication.

“My opposition to the brief is that the justices are in a poor position to judge the veracity or accuracy of such studies,” wrote Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “They simply pick and choose between rivaling studies to claim a definitive factual foundation for an opinion. 

The AAMC has gone to great lengths in its quest to achieve racial diversity in medical schools – even going so far as to lower admissions standards to recruit Black students. According to freedom of information reports obtained by Fox News, the organization considers diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) a “key learning outcome.” In its instructions to schools, the AAMC presents DEI as a major factor in admissions and recruiting, hiring, promoting, and developing curricula. 

Among the latest mandatory subjects of study are:

  • White supremacy
  • Colonization
  • Assimilation
  • Acculturation
  • Intersectionality and the ability to recommend medical treatment based on a patient’s social and political identity.

Nearly all medical schools comply with AAMC directives, as they risk losing their ability to issue degrees to students if they refuse. 

The AAMC’s stated goal is to improve medical education, but this is the exact opposite of what they are doing. The real tragedy here is that by following these directives, universities are actively creating a future with a lower standard of medical care.


Supreme Court Justice Jackson’s second error reveals another industry gone woke 

Justice Ketanji Jackson’s faulty claim in affirmative action case takes another hit as lawyers ‘clarify’ brief 

About The Author


  1. frank stetson

    So, basically what Alice is recommending is that we kick the dog when it’s down?

    When will she review with the same intensity, Donald J. Trump’s dissention on the 2020 election? Any day now she will have her next chance……

    • LMB

      Frankie! What the hell does this mean, kick the dog when its down?! Sounds rather stupid!

      Alice, you did a great job of researching to rectify Brown’s BS opinion based on falsehoods!! It would appear that the AAMC’s has an agenda that smells of swamp gas!!!



  3. DonRS

    This is the kind of “quality” research this Associate Supreme Court Justice performs. I’ve seen all manner of “credentials” for this AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BENEFICIARY. I can’t help but wonder just how warranted those credentials really are, or were the “standards” lowered to match her capabilities! I’m betting the standards were reduced!

    • Dan tyree

      Frank probably has intimate moments with dogs. I’ve read his comments that used phrase “screw the pooch”. Which is probably on the agenda for public schools next term in blew states

  4. Frank stetson

    Every Dan must have his day


    You can’t teach an old Dan new tricks

    It’s a Dan eat, Dan world

  5. DPG

    This affirmative action appointee (ketanji) is all of the evidence anyone should ever need in order to abolish all raced based decisions in any scenario. ASAP

  6. frank stetson

    Ketanji Jackson has made what we, in business, would call a clm or career limiting move that, at minimum, would put her in the “penalty box” for some unprescribed period of time, or worse. Given a lifetime appointment, it’s the penalty box…… Does she ever escape is up to her and her future actions. But, for now, she can sit with Clarence Thomas in the penalty box.

    I say this premature, since we have not heard her response, and others, have been slow to step up to the plate — not a good sign.

    The only defense offered so far was in Alice’s Yahoo link: “In a letter Friday filed to the Supreme Court docket, Norton Rose Fulbright wrote that the argument cited by Jackson in her opinion “warrants clarification” and sought to clear up any “confusion.”

    “The principal cited finding of the [study] was that the mortality rate for Black newborns, as compared to White newborns, decreased by more than half when under the supervision of Black physician,” the law firm’s letter said. “In absolute terms, this study found that patient-physician racial concordance led to a reduction in health inequity.”

    However, the letter continued, while survival and mortality may be opposites and decreased mortality generally indicates increased survival, “statistically they are not interchangeable. Thus, the statement in the [amicus brief] warrants clarification.”

    Still, the lawyer added that the study nonetheless supports Jackson’s argument in her dissent, expressing “regret” for “any confusion” that may have been caused by the statement in its brief.

    The letter to the Supreme Court added that a “more precise” summary of the 2020 study’s findings would have been to say that “having a Black physician reduces by more than half the likelihood of death for Black newborns as compared to White newborns.”

    In other words, Jackson’s claim in her opinion that having a Black physician “more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will survive” could be misleading, because the study on which that statement is based examined lower mortality rates, which is not the same thing statistically as survival.

    Norton Rose Fulbright’s letter came after Jackson’s statement in her dissenting opinion caught the attention of several legal experts.” They are the second largest legal firm in the US.

    WHY DID ALICE LEAVE THIS OUT OF HER “WELL-RESEARCHED: STORY WHEN IT APPEARS IN HER YAHOO LINK? Even Fox covered the Norton Rose Fulbright story although not in Alice’s FOX link.

    And then the pile on by DPG and DonRS (Dumb Punk Goon and Don Really Shitty) who claim “This affirmative action appointee (ketanji) is all of the evidence anyone should ever need in order to abolish all raced based decisions in any scenario” and ” I’ve seen all manner of “credentials” for this AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BENEFICIARY. I can’t help but wonder just how warranted those credentials really are, or were the “standards” lowered to match her capabilities! I’m betting the standards were reduced!”

    These dumb bastards actually outdid Jackson’s stupidity. They have zero proof that Jackson ever benefited from affirmative action EVEN if Biden said “I want me a black woman for the bench” and DonRS even admits she’s got the stuff.

    If Jackson BENEFITTED from Affirmative Action, then Jackson proves the BENEFITS of Affirmative Action and why we should use it more often.

    DonRS and DPG apparently see black, see accomplishment, see success, and conclude: affirmative action. They represent the worst that America has to offer, at least in this response, and the typical racist Republican response that turns so many Blacks from the party of Lincoln, NOT. They should slither back under that rock they crawled out from shunned by true Americans everywhere, of every party. This shit should not stand. Jackson’s parents are HCBU educated, her father has a law degree and is the chief attorney for Larry’s Miami-Dade School Board. Her mother is a school principal. By all accounts, they are an American success story of our middle class. In school, Jackson excelled with all sorts of honors. In her yearbook, she said she was going judicial. In college, magna cum laude. And in her career, she pretty much followed the same successful path.

    Don and DPG offer no support beyond Jackson’s success to their claims which appear to be made solely on the basis of Jackson’s appearance. That’s wrong and un-American.

    Beyond this tragic error, Jackson’s dissent STANDS and it’s a barn burner.