Enrique Vazquez-Quintana v. Hermenegildo Martinez Remigio, et al.

How can the Supreme Court of the United States reconcile the substandard judicial practices exemplified by the acceptance of false expert testimony in my case with the stringent requirements of the scientific stan­ dard they purported to apply and the principles of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, as elucid­ ated in Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products decision? Furthermore, how does the Court address the broader issue of the Insular Cases, which perpetuate a dual system of constitutional application, thereby under­ mining the foundational principle of equality enshrined in the same Constitution they are sworn to protect?

In a case where a lower court’s decision is influ­ enced by unscientific testimony and apparent judicial animosity, resulting in a severe violation of constitu­ tional rights, how can the Supreme Court ensure the protection of due process and equal treatment under the law for a medical professional whose career and dignity have been unjustly compromised in the terri­ tory of Puerto Rico where the United States Constitu­ tion is not fully applied?

Should the Supreme Court be allowed to pretend that they know more medicine than the Medical Board of Puerto Rico, a subsidiary of the Secretary of Health that provides the licenses, evaluates, fines and remove from practice the physicians in Puerto Rico and emit a sentence with the only intention to punish an honest citizen that comes to their court looking from justice?