Reagan, Trump and Biden: Keeping Promises

President Joe Biden promised during the campaign that he would appoint the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. He now intends to fulfill that promise with the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer.

"The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity," Biden said of Breyer's replacement, "and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

For this, Biden has been criticized by some -- including Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who said on ABC's "This Week" that Biden's pledge to appoint a Black woman "adds to the further perception that the court is a political institution like Congress when it is not supposed to be." 

Asked by host George Stephanopoulos, "isn’t it exactly what President Reagan did when he said he would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court? Isn’t it exactly what President Trump did when he said he would appoint a woman to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg?"

Collins insisted, "This isn't exactly the same."

"What President Biden did was, as a candidate, make this pledge. And that helped politicize the entire nomination process," Collins said. "What President Reagan said is, as one of his Supreme Court justices, he would like to appoint a woman." 

But, as FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely writes, Collins failed to mention that Reagan, too, made his pledge as a candidate.

At a 1980 campaign news conference, Reagan announced that “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman, saying it’s “time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists.” And his first appointment was a woman -- Judge Sandra Day O'Connor. 

As a sitting president, Trump’s situation was somewhat different than either Reagan or Biden, although the political context was the same. While running for reelection, Trump announced at a campaign rally -- less than six weeks before the election -- that he would appoint a woman. He did appoint a woman, Judge Amy Coney Barrett. 

Read the full story, "Biden Promise on SCOTUS Nominee Not Unique," for more about what the candidates said at the time and the circumstances of each announcement. 

Reader: Everyone I know who is boosted contracted omicron. What is the vaccine effectiveness rate with the omicron variant? 

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: The gist is this: If you get a booster shot, your odds of getting infected are much lower than they would be for the unvaccinated and those with only primary vaccinations. Plus, the booster shot provides increased protection against severe illness, hospitalization and even death.

As we’ve written, multiple studies have identified the benefits of getting a booster shot.

For example, a Jan. 21 CDC study found mRNA vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization in adults while omicron was predominant was 90%, at least two weeks after the third dose — up from 57% six months or more after a second dose. Two other CDC studies, one published in JAMA, also found lower case rates among vaccinated-and-boosted individuals, compared with the unvaccinated and those with only primary vaccinations.

For more, read our article "Studies Show Boosted Immunity Against Omicron with Booster Doses." 

We also wrote an article in late December called "Early Data on Omicron," which includes a section on "Vaccine Effectiveness and Reinfection." In that section, we write about a study by the Imperial College London COVID-19 response team that showed:
 

1. Omicron is highly transmissible. The study estimated the risk of reinfection with the omicron variant is 5.4 times the reinfection risk of the delta variant.
2. A booster increases protection. The study estimated that vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection after two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech or AstraZeneca vaccine would be between 0% and 20%. But protection against symptomatic infection increased to an estimated 55% to 80% after a third booster dose.

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "Social Media Posts Repeat Inaccurate Reporting on Ivermectin and Omicron": A Japanese company found that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin showed an “antiviral effect” against the omicron variant in a lab setting. Reuters has corrected a story in which it “misstated” that the drug was effective in a phase 3 clinical trial with human subjects. Some social media users have repeated Reuters’ reporting error but have not repeated the correction. 
• "Cotton Distorts Border Apprehension Impact": Sen. Tom Cotton falsely equated the nearly 2 million apprehensions of immigrants attempting to illegally cross the southern border during Joe Biden’s presidency to “adding the entire population of Nebraska to this country.” He’s wrong for several reasons, including that most of those apprehended were immediately turned around.
• "Scientist Misleads on COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Vaccine Safety for Children": The approved and authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. are effective at preventing severe disease, and experts say the benefits of vaccination for children outweigh any known or potential risk. But social media users have shared video of Dr. Robert Malone misleadingly asserting that the COVID-19 vaccines are “not working” and claiming without evidence that many children “will be hospitalized” and may experience brain damage and infertility due to the vaccines.
• "Studies Show Boosted Immunity Against Omicron with Booster Doses": Neither primary vaccination nor natural immunity is generally stopping infections with the omicron variant, but research shows booster doses substantially increase protection. Yet, Republican Sen. Rand Paul claimed that a case of COVID-19 provides “an immunity better than the vaccine.”
• "Posts About ‘Cross Reactants’ Misrepresent Accuracy of COVID-19 PCR Tests": Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests for COVID-19 are highly accurate. People on social media, however, are circulating lists of germs that they baselessly claim will cause such tests to be falsely positive. In reality, it’s the opposite. The lists include pathogens that have been tested by the manufacturers and did not react to the test.
• "False Reports of Wisconsin Assembly’s Action on 2020 Electors": A resolution introduced in the Wisconsin Assembly to reverse the state’s 2020 presidential electoral votes for President Joe Biden was referred to the Rules Committee on Jan. 25. The committee chair tweeted that the resolution was “illegal” and would not advance. But conservative websites falsely reported the assembly passed the resolution.
• "Dr. Fauci Still Treats Patients, Contrary to Dr. Oz’s Claim": Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been working for nearly two years to help end the COVID-19 pandemic — even treating patients with the disease. But Dr. Mehmet Oz, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, falsely claimed that “Fauci’s never taken care of patients.” 
• "Social Media Posts Use Old Video of White House Official to Make False Claim About Stimulus Checks": Three stimulus payments have been sent to Americans to help them weather the economic impact of the pandemic. Social media posts are using a video clip of a White House official to falsely claim a fourth payment will arrive soon. But the video is from March 2021, and a fourth payment isn’t forthcoming.

• "Ted Nugent publica titular falso, con afirmación ficticia sobre la salud de Sotomayor": La jueza Sonia Sotomayor, quien como diabética tiene un mayor riesgo de enfermarse gravemente a causa del COVID-19, ha participado de forma remota en los recientes debates de la Corte Suprema. Pero Ted Nugent publicó un titular falso en Facebook, utilizando el logotipo y el nombre de un reportero de CNBC, con la afirmación infundada de que Sotomayor tuvo un resultado positivo para la enfermedad. Un portavoz de CNBC dijo que el medio no publicó ese titular.
• "Preguntas y respuestas sobre las pruebas rápidas para hacerse en casa": La demanda por pruebas rápidas para detectar el COVID-19, desatada en diciembre por la altamente contagiosa variante ómicron, continúa en lo que va del 2022. Con la demanda, han surgido preguntas sobre su eficacia, cómo usarlas correctamente y dónde conseguirlas. Respondemos a estas dudas y más.