Thread by @mtracey

Alito couldn't have been more clear: he wasn't making any kind of "anti-vax" point, he was establishing that OSHA has never before imposed a regulation on workers that inflicts some risk of adverse health effects, however remote. But of course gets smeared as "anti-vax" anyway

https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1479588835721891847

Ironically, Alito expressly foresaw that he would be (deliberately) misunderstood in exactly this manner

Alito: "These vaccines and every other vaccine of which I'm aware, and many other medications, have benefits and they also have risks... some people who are vaccinated and some people who take medication that is highly beneficial will suffer adverse consequences"

"Anti-vax"???

The Solicitor General of the United States, arguing in favor of the vax mandate, herself conceded that there is some degree of "risk" in taking the vaccine, which is exactly the point Alito was trying to establish. Is she also "anti-vax"???

Alito's allegedly "anti-vax" line of questioning successfully elicited an acknowledgement from the Solicitor General that OSHA has never before imposed such a risk-bearing mandate. Which seems like a useful thing to know about government power. But journos just scream "ANTI-VAX!"

Now look at how Slate characterized Alito's questioning: "anti-vax madness." All he did was establish the risks which a new government order is requiring individuals to incur! Please step back and appreciate just how maliciously the term "anti-vax" has been diluted and abused

On a positive note, at least the Supreme Court is relatively prompt about publishing the full audio and text transcripts of oral arguments, giving the wider public the ability to swiftly "debunk" this mendacious fakery from @mjs_DC and Slate