And she didn’t say anything? Really?
To whom should she have said something? How do you know she didn’t?
More interesting is how she came to her conclusion, I can’t find a list of published names, just ‘estimates’ of how many are attributed to the event.
The initial tally was just 64 while the ‘estimate’ is now close to 3k. It’s not surprising her friends missed the list of the initial 64, probably killed by trauma from the storm rather than secondary effects that are estimated.
Oh, the administration, the media, maybe even the “resistance “ inside the administration
Here’s an article discussing the death toll. I remembered reading it recently, and dug it up.
The media? The “resistance”? I’m sure the “conservatives” here at CAF would say that it would be wildly inappropriate for a Justice of the Supreme Court to talk to either of those entities. Possibly even to talk to the Administration.
In any event, a lot of people died, and a lot suffered, in Puerto Rico. There were Masses said at my parish, and a couple of special collections. They’re having a tough time.
Why? At that point she’d be asking as just a citizen concerned about a missing relative, not a Supreme Court Justice, who would have no jurisdiction over the matter.
Ok. So what’s your point? Is her percieved lack of comment on the situation in Puerto Rico indicative of something? If so, what?
Do you believe Justice Sotomayor is in contact with the “resistance”? Do you believe she’s working with it? Do you believe she’s part of it?
I was responding to your assertion that Sotomayer contacting the media or anybody else over her missing relative would be considered inappropriate by “CAF conservatives”. Nothing else.
You don’t think a justice of the Supreme Court contacting the “resistance” (assuming such a thing exists) would be inappropriate?
I mean, even I think that would be inappropriate, and I’m hardly a conservative.
What are you talking about when you say “Resistance”?
The study by JWU didn’t publish a list of confirmed names,
they used a spreadsheet and algorithms to estimate the number, they don’t have specific people assigned to the count.
Still only an estimate.
No actual names.
Look … collecting names is not rocket science.
Is your point that, unless the actual names of all, each and every one, of those who died during or because of the hurricane in Puerto Rico are published, somewhere where you can read each and every one, then we can disregard and discount those deaths?
Look, this isn’t a political issue. Don’t make it into one. Puerto Rico was hit very, very hard by Hurricane Maria. People died. Some people died immediately (the 64 number often cited) and some (more) people died because of lack of water, electricity, shelter, etc.
This is a humanitarian crisis. It’s not criticizing The Leader to try to assess the damage, including deaths, caused by the storm.
Collecting names is not rocket science.
Performs duties relating to deceased personnel, including recovery, collection, evacuation and identification.
I’ve made no such implication. I would more suspect Justice Ginsburg of that.
I’m only stating that I’m surprised she made no mention of her specific knowledge of it.