Supreme Court Elephants and bitches.

    The elephants in the room were quite visible in this week's Supreme Court hearings on the latest Republican attempt to destroy the signature legislation of America's first black President.

    Justice Thomas---often incorrectly called a "sphinx" due to the absence of any oral questions from him since 2006---is, not by any stretch of the imagination, not an elephant. But for Thomas, apparently, asking questions is a bitch.

    The ego equivalent of Thomas, Justice Scalia, is indubitably an elephant. He will stay on the court for several more decades, peppering bitchy lawyers with questions derived from the latest Huffpo trolls or the opines of Bill O'Reilly. With a wink at Justice Roberts, Scalia reasoned that removing health care subsidies for ten million people could easily be rectified by Congressional action---a preposterous suggestion that caused even Rand Paul to cover his mouth to keep from laughing out loud at the speciousness of the remedy.

    Justice Alito was about as interested in the Solicitor General's bitching as an aging elephant is in relationship counseling.  Alito is his own kind of elephant, religiously reading the Wall Street Journal for any suggestions of Congressional remediation---especially right now. He searches the Murdock rag for news of the latest savory corporate mega merger, salivating on his robe when he discovers one.

    What was unexpected in the hearing was the logic employed by the white elephant, Justice Kennedy. If plaintiffs were correct, he reasoned, the government had indeed used coercion, a favorable ruling for them then calling into question every government direction to the states in the last century including Reagan's coercing states in regard to conforming to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. According to one observer, Justice Kennedy's comments coerced everyone in the courtroom to pee a little, but for different reasons.

    My prognosis is that Justice Roberts' question will key the majority opinion in favor of granting the administration enough leeway to correctly interpret four words in a law of ten thousand sentences. In effect, "Can't the next administration then interpret the law differently?"---a bitch of a question for both sides.

    It's as easy as twirling a baton to identify the four elephants on the Supreme Court bench, and to be fair, the four pet donkeys as well. It's more difficult to discern whether Justice Kennedy is an elephant, especially when he thinks up his own arguments like the problematic constitutional effects of a coercion-of-the-states decision in favor of the plaintiffs. But the most difficult part of comprehending this week's Supreme Court's circus hearing on the legality of providing health care subsidies to ten million people is keeping track of all the bitches in the court room---there were just too many to count.  

       

    Comments

    Past courts probably would not taken this case.   It has been just political theater put on to keep the less then 30% extremist motivated to keep supporting the GOP. What is left of the Civil Rights backlash is very suicidal and would rather die from the lack of healthcare then to let this  President accomplish something major. 

    Roberts has to choose between his worship of today's conservative economic ideology or doing what is right for the well being of people in this country.  The question is how suicidal is Roberts? Will he let his legacy go down in flames or will he try to keep it from hitting bottom?  


    Thanks, momoe. I'm betting on Roberts giving the administration the benefit of the doubt.


    From a Civil Rights standpoint, this court will be remembered along with the Taney court in Plessy v.Ferguson. The court gutting the Voting Rights Act was a travesty.

    A decision for the plaintiffs would be a disaster for Republicans. Thanks, rmrd.


    I hereby render unto Oxy the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog site, given to all of Oxy from all of me.

    THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM.

    This is priceless!

    DAMN, ha..


    I am honored, Mr. Day.


    Clarence Thomas at his 90's Senate confirmation hearing:

    ..in his confirmation hearings Thomas had “testified poignantly about watching busloads of prisoners from his window. ‘I say to myself almost every day, there but for the grace of God go I,’ he told senators eager to believe him.

    Clarence Thomas minority (of 2, with his soulmate Scalia) dissenting opinion in one of his first SCOTUS cases early 90's, case of a chained and shackled Louisiana prisoner who had the crap beaten out of him by jail guards:

    Thomas’s entire description of the injuries suffered by Hudson was that they were “minor.”....“Surely prison was not a more congenial place in the early years of the Republic than it is today,” the opinion noted, yet in those days, it pointed out, courts “routinely rejected prisoner grievances by explaining that the courts had no role in regulating prison life.

    It's a bitch. 'Not worse than the 18th century..no role for courts'. If British law advanced at a Thomas/Scalia pace criminals would still be drawn and quartered in London.

    Self centered, lying, sociopathic, hypocrisy...essential traits of GOP ideology.


    Thanks, NCD. He's a bitching travesty.


    I see Thomas as a person who is along for the free ride and free lunch.  He just dislikes everything and don't care if people knows it. 


    I just never got this man from Day 1.

    One might think he could throw in one measly comment about the human suffering which will be caused if the state exchanges are trashed by this facetious law suit.


    Today I ran across the "Elephant Test" - 'it's hard to describe, but immediately recognizable once you see it."

    I seem to recall on Talking Points Memo owning the word "Bitch", and it appears all the bitchez are finally comin' home to roost.

    As for Justice Thomas, sometimes there's nary affine line [sic] between a Sphinx and a Sphinxter.


    hahahhhahhah

    Okay, here we go, the same damn blog;

    I hereby render unto Peracles the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me?

    You're still sending me the fifty bucks, right?

    hahahah


    It's in your Social Security safebox, don't you see it?


    And for Thomas and Scalia, unfortunately, there seems to be no Preparation that will stop their

    b--itchin'. 


    I'm not sayin' I called this back in March but I was smellin' it purty good for a bitchin' amateur. Essentially Roberts kicked it back to "Agency" interpretation, which his question may have portended.

    But don't get too excited. Scrotus is most likely going to stick it to us when the religious freedom crap comes up to the surface again.


    OKAY!

    It is actually SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of US.

    Although, it appears that THEY stick us from time to time.

    the end


    But don't forget, if the next administration can interpret it differently ( a kind of scotal recall) Jeb NoLastName could screw the whole thing up again.


    According to what I've been reading this decision precludes that possibility. It's not a matter of interpretation. The over all reading of the ACA makes it clear that the provisions containing the word "state" were just poorly worded Roberts wrote. Roberts went into detail about many provisions of the act that make no sense if subsidies are available only on a state exchange. I'm not a lawyer but all the writers I've  read that discuss this issue say that Roberts closed the matter of interpretation for good.


    Thanks, I hope so.


    Latest Comments