December 27, 2012

What is Drudge trying to say about Sonia Sotomayor?

This is at the top of the right-hand column at Drudge this morning:



Now, as we saw last night, what Justice Sotomayor did was deny an emergency injunction. That would have required a finding that "the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear," which clearly, they are not. And her opinion never mentions "morning-after" pills, only contraception, generally. (The challenged HRSA’s guidelines refer to "all Food and Drug Administration . . . approved contraceptive methods.")

With that rather strange photograph and the reference to "morning-after," I've got to infer that Drudge intended sexual humor aimed at the Justice. I think the photograph was chosen for the "bedroom hair" and the groggy eyes. Or do you focus on the hand? Does it seem to be tossing pills at us?

34 comments:

The Farmer said...

I think he's either saying, "She'll never need them!" or "Use them so you don't end up with something that looks like this!"

Paul said...

But but but... it was a MANDATE not a TAX... right?

I thought MANDATES were bad and TAXES good?

Will SCOTUS ever be consistant?

Ann Althouse said...

@Paul I hope you realize that it was Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Employment Division v. Smith, who said that neutral, generally applicable rules don't violate the Free Exercise Clause.

If you think that there should be special exemptions for those who feel a substantial burden from such general, neutral rules, you are agreeing with the liberal side of the court.

(But there is a statute: RFRA.)

carrie said...

I love Drudge! I keep pointing my 19 year old son to Drudge, but I don't think he gets Drudge . . . yet. Maybe this thread will help him to understand the subtle genius of Drudge.

Lem said...

Your purpose in coming here was to sabotage Obamacare operations... true or false?

I dont anything about Obamacare.

Answer true or false!
Answer! Answer! Answer!

False false false.

kentuckyliz said...

Ask Cardinal Dolan if he thinks those rules are neutral.

I think the visual is more about her upturned lifted hand...UP-HOLDING.

We can't see in her hand. There may be a pill in there.

edutcher said...

The Wise Latina looks like she spent the night going over the Short Shortstop's briefs and is in deep need of an Alka-Seltzer.

Saint Croix said...

Employment Division v. Smith is a perfect example of "conservative" Justices negating rights and making them disappear. Scalia's opinion eviscerates the free exercise clause, so that it has no meaning other than an adjunct to the free speech clause. In other words, to Justice Scalia, religious exercise is just more human speech.

EDH said...

I think the photograph was chosen for the "bedroom hair" and the groggy eyes. Or do you focus on the hand? Does it seem to be tossing pills at us?

Following her wedding night?

That Smell

Now they call you Prince Charming
Can't speak a word when you're full of 'ludes
Say you'll be all right come tomorrow
But tomorrow might not be here for you
Ooooh that smell
Can't you smell that smell
Ooooh that smell
The smell of death surrounds you

Astro said...

I've got to infer that Drudge intended sexual humor aimed at the Justice. I think the photograph was chosen for the "bedroom hair" and the groggy eyes. Or do you focus on the hand? Does it seem to be tossing pills at us?

??? Or maybe a picture is just a picture. She looks like that in every picture I've seen of her.
I think Drudge has you psyched-out to look for inferences even when there are none.

Chuck Currie said...

"Shut-up and give me the damn pill!"

Cheers

gregq said...

I'm with The Farmer on this one, because that's the exact message I got.

gregq said...

"The question raised in Oregon v. Smith, where adherents of a Native American religious group argued they should be allowed to use peyote in religious services while everyone else is banned from using peyote."

"Smith": I should be able to get stoned, so long as I can find a religion that makes that a 'sacrament'."

Scalia: No dice.

If Smith had gone the other way, you would have seen the complete end of the drug war, laws against prostitution, and anything else that could somehow be classified as "religious devotion" (hey, can we bring back human sacrifice? Why should your neutrally applied law against murder prevent me from offering this homeless guy's heart to my Aztec God?).

Now, I'd like to see the end of the drug war, and I think that laws against prostitution are stupid (laws against pimping are a good idea. Prostitution? If it's "your body, your choice", I don't see how you justify banning that). But those are decision that need to come from the political process, not a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.

Going from there to saying "the Federal Government gets to force Catholics to buy contraceptives" is a rather large leap.

Clyde said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clyde said...

Obama appointee. Walk of Shame. I know, redundant. Note that it's Sotomayor's rght hand.

Lemme use your toothbrush. Have you got a clean shirt?
My panties in a wad at the bottom of my purse.
I walk into the street, the air's so cool.
I'm wired and I'm tired and I'm grinnin' like a fool.

I've been on a floor lookin' for a chair.
I've been on a chair lookin' for a couch.
I've been on a couch lookin' for a bed, lookin' for a bed,
lookin' for my, my, my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
Said my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
If he can't fix it, I don't know who can.

The sensamilla salesman, the cops on the block,
they know what I been doin'. They see the way I walk.
I wonder what they'd say now. I wonder what they'd do.
To feel somebody want them the way I'm wantin' you.

I've been on a floor lookin' for a chair.
I've been on a chair lookin' for a couch.
I've been on a couch lookin' for a bed, lookin' for a bed,
could you really be, my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
Said my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
Use me up if you think you can.

Oh, I've been on a floor lookin' for a chair.
I've been on a chair lookin' for a couch.
I've been on a couch lookin' for a bed, lookin' for a bed,
lookin' for my, my, my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
Said my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man;
If he can't fix it, I don't know who can.

Oh, said, my right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man.
Said, my right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man.
My right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man.
Said, my right hand, my right hand man;
my right hand, my right hand man.

If he can't fix it, gonna find a boy who can.

Clyde said...

P.S. You're welcome!

JHapp said...

I have noticed the left are more likely to use hand and arm gestures when making their points.

Don said...

Hercules Industries (also in the 10th Circuit) was granted an injuction.

How should this inconsistency within the circuit be addressed?

Ann Althouse said...

"Scalia's opinion eviscerates the free exercise clause, so that it has no meaning other than an adjunct to the free speech clause. In other words, to Justice Scalia, religious exercise is just more human speech."

No. It also has a nondiscrimination principle. If the rule governing conduct is not neutral and generally applicable, then strict scrutiny applies.

Brent said...

That would have required a finding that "the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear," which clearly, they are not.

Ann, it is difficult to imagine in all of the years you have had this blog - and I have posted here every one of those years - a more ridiculous and outright idiotic statement that you have written.

It is absolutely clear that the Obama regime is violating the First Amendment rights of Americans regarding their religious consciences.

Nothing could b clearer

Thanks for seeking to muddy the waters and insure that even more lawyers will have jobs for the most specious and destructive uses.

Absolutely ridiculous.

joeyess said...

Ann, you've taken pareidolia to a new and disgustingly sophomoric level.

Jesus, get laid already, would you?

joeyess said...

By the way, you've done this pareidolia thing before, Ann.

sparrow said...

Neutrality only makes sense in the active cases where the Government must permit all to act according to their religion by applying a religion neutral rule that favors no one. Here the Government has a applied the same rule to all but it is anything but neutral in effect as it expressly makes illegal Catholic Charity. The same rule for everyone, but hardly neutral. Imagine that the government required Kosher Deli's to carry ham, if they applied that law to all restaurants it's be "neutral" in the same sense the HHS mandate is neutral here. Or imagine the government outlawed circumcision (like SF tried to). It would be neutral in the same sense as the HHS rule - it applies to all but only harms a religious minority.

joeyess said...

The government isn't requiring Hobby Lobby to do a damn thing. The government has put the onus on the insurance providers to ask the employee if contraception is something they want in their plan and then if the employee chooses in the affirmative, the insurance company must provide it for free. Of course, no one is privy to this information, especially the employer. So, to suggest that this is somehow an infringement on HobbyJesus'Lobby and their oh so delicate religious rights is absurd in the manner of avante garde theater.

EDH said...

joeyess said...
Ann, you've taken pareidolia to a new and disgustingly sophomoric level.

Did joyless read Althouse's post or just look at the pictures?

"the insurance company must provide it for free"

The answer to the entire healthcare cost crisis right there. Why didn't we think of that before?

chickelit said...

By the way, you've done this pareidolia thing before, Ann.

Drudge may be tweaking Inga with that photo. Do you suppose Drudge reads Althouse?

joeyess said...

EDH, yes, I read it. Just like I read this one:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/new-hillary-clinton-video-is-take-on.html#comments

It's the same nonsensical drivel that the entire internet has come to expect from Ann when she gets her Box 'O Wine on.

chickelit said...

Joeyess sounds like a jilted admirer or a fan of womb-gazing.

Brent said...

Joeyess,

Your understanding of the First Amendment and t
explanation exceeds the bounds of known stupidity.

Were you born without reasoning ability?



Brent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Renee said...

" Of course, no one is privy to this information, especially the employer."

Hard to believe how the costs are not known by the employer, especially self-insured employers.

Your already employer (at least HR) knows everything, as it is. The only answer is to pay up yourselves for your own family planning. If it gets billed, even at no cost to use, the billing codes are there and represent what you are taking and what you are doing in the doctor's office.

traditionalguy said...

I get it Drudge. Sonia is a woman and a Puerto Rican Hispanic too. See her hair!

That's not much of a point. So what? Does Drudge just want to ridicule an easy target?

Palladian said...

Ann, you've taken pareidolia to a new and disgustingly sophomoric level.

Someone got an OED subscription for Christmas!

Saint Croix said...

No. It also has a nondiscrimination principle. If the rule governing conduct is not neutral and generally applicable, then strict scrutiny applies.

That's true, but that same analysis applies in free speech cases.

For instance, it would be illegal under the free speech clause to make it illegal for Republicans to drive cars. That's conduct, but since you're singling out Republicans, you are punishing their speech.

Substitute "Baptists" for "Republicans" and you see the problem. Religion becomes just more human speech, no different from any other human speech. We might as well not have a free exercise clause at all.

The Lyng case is a perfect example of a Court that has destroyed our free exercise clause.