Althouse: "Just as an MSNBC anchor is saying, 'We're also watching the Supreme Court. It could be a big day'"/"And just like with the Texas abortion cases, SCOTUS has faked us all out. No more opinions today"/"SCOTUS is definitely trolling us..."

January 13, 2022

"Just as an MSNBC anchor is saying, 'We're also watching the Supreme Court. It could be a big day'"/"And just like with the Texas abortion cases, SCOTUS has faked us all out. No more opinions today"/"SCOTUS is definitely trolling us..."

Commentary at SCOTUSblog just now.

49 comments:

Dave Begley said...: No, you fucking idiots. It takes a great deal of time to write a SCOTUS opinion. You can't just pull it out of your ass like MSNBC does every fucking day. Law must be cited. The opinion must be reasoned. You can't make shit up.; 1/13/22, 9:10 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: No opinion is a good opinion, if you want my opinion; 1/13/22, 9:13 AM
Achilles said...: SCOTUS is just running out the clock on the mandates.

Right now everyone in DC is trying to figure out how the Regime is going to hold on to power.

They have Republicans out there talking big game.

They have Cruz getting the DOJ/FBI say "I can't answer that" over and over.

Everyone is trying cover for the old decrepit man who just shit his pants in a live televised speech to the Nation.

Mitch McConell has always liked and respected Joe Biden by the way.

They are doing everything in their power to not talk about the stolen election of 2020, the empty shelves in super markets, the open borders, the recession, the 17% inflation, the massive crime wave.

They are all on the same team.; 1/13/22, 9:17 AM
Lucid-Ideas said...: Ask not for who the trolls are trolling mainstream media.

They troll for thee.; 1/13/22, 9:22 AM
rhhardin said...: Give us thus innocent water,
O pinions give us, of sense most faithful
To go over there and to return.

- Holderlin, Patmos; 1/13/22, 9:22 AM
Achilles said...: Dave Begley said...

No, you fucking idiots. It takes a great deal of time to write a SCOTUS opinion. You can't just pull it out of your ass like MSNBC does every fucking day. Law must be cited. The opinion must be reasoned. You can't make shit up.

As soon as that mandate came out they should have had notes ready.

Everyone knew the issues at hand.

There are not that many words in the Constitution. It is not that complicated. The only purpose of making it complicated is to give lawyers and judges power over other people.

This power was not given to the federal government.

Therefor it was reserved to the people, or the States.

2 lines. 10 seconds. 30 seconds to go copy and paste the 9th and 10th amendment for you.

Done.; 1/13/22, 9:24 AM
Anonymous said...: "No, you fucking idiots. It takes a great deal of time to write a SCOTUS opinion."

Perhaps you need to explain that to your partisan friends.

On the ride home the last two nights, I listened to Madison-Right-Wing-Talk-Radio-Harridan Vicki McKenna rage about how the Supreme Court utterly failed by not issuing an opinion over the weekend of the vax mandate.

Lots of `having it both ways' from the right these days.; 1/13/22, 9:27 AM
mccullough said...: Sotomayor’s dissent with her Fake Covid Data takes awhile.; 1/13/22, 9:31 AM
Tom T. said...: But they did decide Babcock v. Kijakazi, and held that civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual-status military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7)(A)(III). I'm surprised Ann isn't blogging about this fascinating stuff.

Seriously, though, the Court accepts some really dull, technical stuff for review along with the high-profile cases.; 1/13/22, 9:35 AM
Drago said...: Dumb Lefty Mark: "Lots of `having it both ways' from the right these days."

LOL. Yeah, "lots"....about the timing of the release of a decision! Sounds powerfully substantive.......not.

Naturally, in discussions about "having it both ways", I guess now would not be a good time to reference democraticals use of the filibuster 328 times in 2019-2020 while now claiming anyone supporting the legislative filibuster is the literal reincarnation of George Wallace!

No way to stop Dumb Lefty Mark from Dumb Lefty Mark-ing I guess.; 1/13/22, 10:01 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @ Tom T

That's how they troll. With the dullest material imaginable; 1/13/22, 10:01 AM
Michael K said...: The Supremes are taking a dive, just like they did on the election.; 1/13/22, 10:08 AM
Mark said...: As someone else pointed out at Scotusblog, the cases are on the emergency docket, so they could be released at any time, and not just on scheduled days.; 1/13/22, 10:10 AM
Joe Smith said...: 'Law must be cited. The opinion must be reasoned. You can't make shit up.'

Unless you're a birthday piñata...then it only about 'the narrative.'; 1/13/22, 10:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Ah, Drago with the personal attacks and off-topic arguments.

Moderation is pointless.; 1/13/22, 10:20 AM
mikee said...: Supreme Court Justices have clerks who round up the citations and create the briefing papers that are considered by Justices in cases before the Court, and someone drafts a decision (I bet usually a clerk, again) which may be edited or used wholly or in part by the Justice issuing a decision or dissent under their own name.

Guess which decisions probably take more review and get more input from a Justice. Is it the technical legal issue case, like the one Tom T noted above? Any good clerk can figure out what the law says about civil service pensions. Or is it the one with huge social impact, like the Texas abortion law case? It takes a lot more work by clerks and then by the Justice, and needs one helluva Justice finalizing the decision, to overcome emanations and penumbras of an constitutionally-unstated right to murder viable infants in their wombs.; 1/13/22, 10:25 AM
Drago said...: Dumb Lefty Mark at 10:20 AM: "Ah, Drago with the personal attacks and off-topic arguments."

Dumb Lefty Mark at 9:27 AM: "Perhaps you need to explain that to your partisan friends.
On the ride home the last two nights, I listened to Madison-Right-Wing-Talk-Radio-Harridan Vicki McKenna rage about how the Supreme Court utterly failed by not issuing an opinion over the weekend of the vax mandate.
Lots of `having it both ways' from the right these days."

Drago at 10:01 AM: "LOL. Yeah, "lots"....about the timing of the release of a decision! Sounds powerfully substantive.......not.

Naturally, in discussions about "having it both ways", I guess now would not be a good time to reference democraticals use of the filibuster 328 times in 2019-2020 while now claiming anyone supporting the legislative filibuster is the literal reincarnation of George Wallace!"

On topic, on point.

Dumb Lefty Mark has a problem with readers happening to notice his partisan idiocy, which, one supposes, is understandable.; 1/13/22, 10:30 AM
narciso said...: the Court by failing to strike down this criminal abuse of power, causes great damage to the body politic, almost as much as their negligence did a year ago, so we're right to be concerned,; 1/13/22, 10:34 AM
Drago said...: And since Dumb Lefty Mark brought it up (I wonder if he will deny doing that later?), more on the "having it both ways front"...on the left.

Lots of that going around these days, wouldn't you say Mark?

In this case, its the totally reasonable and not political decision at all being made by the entirety of the lefty legacy media to cease reporting COVID case counts, hospitalizations of people "with Covid", etc.

I can't imagine why that changed (wink wink), particularly on the heels of the entire cast of lefty Supreme Court Justices lying through their teeth about COVID statistics leading up to this decision.

Yep, "lots" of that having it both ways by the lefties these days....and for things just a "tad more substantive" than the timing of the release of a decision.; 1/13/22, 10:34 AM
Yancey Ward said...: In the decided case, did SSA take payroll taxes out of his pay as a technician? If so, then he deserves the benefits, if not, then no. Or did Congress pass a law granting benefits without having been on the payroll tax roll for "uniformed" civil servants?; 1/13/22, 10:40 AM
Gretchen said...: It was depressing to hear the level of ignorance expressed by the justices. The simple fact Sotomayor doesn't understand the function of the court as well as completely unscientific pronouncements about number of kids in the hospital, belief that the vaccines stop transmission and infection.

How is it possible these idiots don't have a friend, staffer or family member who is vaxxed but caught COVID? I know at least 15 people who have gotten it after vaccines, one who has been vaccinated and got both Delta and Omicron. I also know some who developed clots or had heart attacks after vaccines.; 1/13/22, 11:28 AM
Tom T. said...: Yancey, if I understand the facts correctly, Babcock was a technician who worked mostly for a civilian agency but also part-time for the Guard. He got social security benefits but also a Guard pension for his technician work, and SSA reduced his SS benefits accordingly. He sued, saying that the law permits double-dipping when the second pension is military. The Court's ruling today was that the technician work he did for the Guard was civilian in nature, not military, so the SSA was correct in reducing his benefits.

He also served on active duty for the Guard and received a separate pension for that work, which was not at issue here.; 1/13/22, 11:28 AM
Freder Frederson said...: the 17% inflation, the massive crime wave.

Well now you are just lying.; 1/13/22, 12:08 PM
Achilles said...: Freder Frederson said...

the 17% inflation, the massive crime wave.

Well now you are just lying.

If you use the same indexes to measure inflation that we used in 1980, it is well into the teens.

But you and your fed cronies changed the definition of inflation because food and gas are too "Volatile."

No Freder you are the liar. You try to change definitions and frame the discussion around your talking points. But in the end you are a hollow shell of bullshit and lies.

Prices are going up faster now than they were in the 70's. They just changed the definition of inflation is all.; 1/13/22, 12:16 PM
Achilles said...: I know you wont read it, but here are all the "revisions" Freder.

The BLS thinks they are all improvements of course.

Gas went from 1.79 to 3.10 here in just one year of the Biden admin.

Good thing we don't include that in CPI figures now right? Might push that 7% to... 17%.; 1/13/22, 12:24 PM
Achilles said...: Or are you actually saying there is no crime wave?

That would be too blatant even for you.; 1/13/22, 12:25 PM
n.n said...: SCOTUS is just running out the clock on the mandates.

Barring the progress of planned parent/hood ("burdens"), "fat is beautiful" and other comorbidities by choice, portable petridishes and and viral collectors, mandated collateral damage, and non-sterilizing vaccines driving silent spread and viral evolution, 10 days to natural immunity with durable and robust effect.; 1/13/22, 12:41 PM
Danno said...: David Begley said..."You can't make shit up."

Have you already forgotten about emanations and penumbras?; 1/13/22, 12:58 PM
Browndog said...: Dave Begley said...

No, you fucking idiots. It takes a great deal of time to write a SCOTUS opinion. You can't just pull it out of your ass like MSNBC does every fucking day. Law must be cited. The opinion must be reasoned. You can't make shit up.

Could have issued a stay in 2 hours. Vaccinations would have to have started Monday to meet the February deadline for "fully vaxxed". It was the last point made in oral arguments.

This feels like a Friday news dump. It feels like we're about to get fucked over big time.

Not sure many people have thoroughly thought what happens to this country, near and long term, if this OSHA mandate becomes a Supreme Court mandate.; 1/13/22, 1:27 PM
Drago said...: Field Marshall Freder doesnt have time to see what is really happening as he is still far too busy "seeing" non-existent Trump/Russia collusion and Putin changing vote totals to install Trump.

Thats the kind of non-existent stuff that can really keep a lefty's mind focused.; 1/13/22, 1:33 PM
Mark said...: Here is the decision on the OSHA case. Rule overturned --

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a244_hgci.pdf; 1/13/22, 1:39 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Supremes block vax mandate.

good.; 1/13/22, 1:42 PM
Drago said...: Can Of Cheese for Hunter: "Supremes block vax mandate.

good."

Didn't the SC leave in place the mandate for federally funded medical facilities?; 1/13/22, 1:44 PM
Browndog said...: THANK. GOD.; 1/13/22, 1:46 PM
Mark said...: Can Of Cheese for Hunter: "Supremes block vax mandate.

good."

Didn't the SC leave in place the mandate for federally funded medical facilities?

Wait. Righty Mark can't get a thumbs up?; 1/13/22, 1:55 PM
Browndog said...: If the Supreme Court can force certain private citizens to take medicine against their will, it reserves the right to force all private citizens to take a medicine against their will.

This is a carve-out. All carve-outs fail over time.

Watch how fast "health care workers" and "federally funded" are re-defined.; 1/13/22, 1:56 PM
Browndog said...: Yes, Kavanaugh and Roberts joined the libs in the health care mandate.; 1/13/22, 1:57 PM
Joe Smith said...: 'THANK. GOD.'

But most of us were on pins and needles.

It shouldn't have even been an issue.

This is how bad things have gotten...the left keeps moving the needle towards totalitarian fascism and the courts and half the population actively entertain the implementation.; 1/13/22, 2:02 PM
Drago said...: Browndog: "Yes, Kavanaugh and Roberts joined the libs in the health care mandate."

Did Barrett, or should I assume no based on your specifying Roberts and Kavanaugh only?; 1/13/22, 2:07 PM
Leland said...: I don't disagree that the mandate for health care workers creates an avenue to be exploited in the future. However, there is a precedent for requiring health care workers to be vaccinated. The arguments earlier in the year were about health care workers mandated to be vaccinated that was approved only for emergency use. The FDA already defeated that argument by giving Pfizer the regular stamp of approval.

I'll take the stay as a big win. The Davos elite really want to impose this vaccine on everyone, despite evidence it does not prevent infection. You look at France or Australia to see what America's progressives would do if they could possibly get away with it. Polls say no, so Congress won't do it. That leaves SCOTUS to give the 2/3rds of government to impose a mandate. The next Biden stump speech will be about court packing and will make Georgia seem tame and mild.; 1/13/22, 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "Did Barrett, or should I assume no"

The answer is at your fingertips and you go to a blog to ask someone else?
lolololol

I guess your uninformed personal attacks make a lot more sense when one realizes that you are unwilling to read a news article.; 1/13/22, 2:15 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: OK - mostly good.
Kavanaugh (the biggest mass rapist! of all time!) and As usual Roberts - disappoint.; 1/13/22, 2:19 PM
Mark said...: Reading the OSHA opinion, it looks to follow the same reasoning as the CDC's eviction moratorium, which was struck down too.; 1/13/22, 2:23 PM
Drago said...: Dumb Lefty Mark: "I guess your uninformed personal attacks make a lot more sense when one realizes that you are unwilling to read a news article."

LOL

On a conference call.

Nice try tiger. You did your best.; 1/13/22, 2:26 PM
Mark said...: I guess your uninformed personal attacks make a lot more sense when one realizes that you are unwilling to read a news article.

Rather than attacking someone for not reading a news article, what makes more sense is to read the actual opinion.

To the bigger point, the opinion shows that Barrett dissented from the ruling upholding the vax requirement for healthcare workers.; 1/13/22, 2:28 PM
Drago said...: Smart Righty Mark: "To the bigger point, the opinion shows that Barrett dissented from the ruling upholding the vax requirement for healthcare workers."

Thnx.; 1/13/22, 2:29 PM
Yancey Ward said...: There are two Marks in the threads- remember that. You can distinguish the two most by simply hovering the cursor over the name- Lefty Mark's ID starts with a 1 and Intelligent Mark's ID starts with 075.; 1/13/22, 2:32 PM
Mark said...: Moving now to the new main post on the decisions.; 1/13/22, 2:43 PM
Drago said...: Yancey Ward: "There are two Marks in the threads- remember that. You can distinguish the two most by..."

...the boilerplate lefty commentary offered up by Dumb Lefty Mark.; 1/13/22, 3:27 PM