How can the Supreme Court reconcile substandard judicial practices, false expert testimony, and unequal constitutional application in Puerto Rico?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. 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 standard they purported to apply and the principles of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, as elucidated 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 undermining the foundational principle of equality enshrined in the same Constitution they are sworn to protect? : 2. Ina case where a lower,court’s decision is influ‘ enced by unscientific testimony and apparent judicial animosity, resulting in a severe violation of constitutional 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 territory of Puerto Rico where the United States Constitution is not fully applied? 3. 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?