[corrected - clearly coffee time:]

The five right wing activist Supreme Court Justices changed the Law by finding empathy for the white males who were claiming that the discriminatory test favored them she be kept.

The case was brought by a serial litigant (Ricci sues a lot), something that the right wing falsely claim to be against.

Republicans made the Frank “Sues a lot” Ricci the issue when they chose to use him to show an empathetic white face against Sotomayor.

But let’s be clear, Sotomayor ruled on the Law whereas the right wing activist Supreme Court Justices changed the law through the Court.

The four ‘liberal’ Supreme Court Justices ruled on the Law, ruled to uphold the Law, and rejected changing the Law through the Court.

Just to make sure we’re clear on this point, Mr. Tea: the Circuit Court panel agreed with the District Court judge’s interpretation of the law to be applied in Ricci.

Spin now, Mr. Tea.

The opposing sides in the case agreed as to all matters of fact. All of ‘em, Mr. Tea. Therefore, there was no hearing and no arguments. The entire appeal turned on matters of law.

The three judge panel unanimously agreed with the ruling of the district court.

So the use of a summary judgment in this case would be wrong why, Mr. Tea?

J.

Can we get another mid-course correction on this sentence? (Hint: you’re having pronoun trouble, Jay Tea.)

The Supreme Court rejected her verdict.

They did NOT reject her opinion.

She gave it a summary dismissal, which means she offered no opinion — just saying “this is crap.”

Not a single justice stated that the issue was crap, and that it deserved only a summary dismissal.

Five justices determined that her ruling was wrong, that the case should have been found differently than she did.

Four justices said she sided with the right side, but cited issues raised by the case that justified a full hearing and an opinion — far more than a summary judgment.

No justice said that the matter deserved summary judgment.

Sigh…

J.

I saw Schumer on Chris Matthews trying to float the exact same bullshit talking point. “The high court rejected her opinion unanimously!”

And of course, Matthews didn’t call him on it.

I think he was talking about when the Liberal Nazis stalked Ricci, going so far as to sneak over to a window by his house to determine, once and for all, what kind if countertops he has.

Yea, let’s peek in his windows to find out what kind of countertops he has in his house and let’s dig through his garbage! Oh wait…

They should just hush up all of the time, because they (almost) never have anything worthwhile to say.

Now they are going to accuse me of trying to take away their first amendment rights, thus proving they don’t know what ‘should’ means.

Ummm… When you file a lawsuit, it’s not your fucking private life, dipshit.

Jesus Christ, you are stupid.

Because the rump of the Republican Party is made up of racist Republican leaders like Republican Jeff “KKK” Sessions who is more interested in firing up his racist Republican base than reaching out to Hispanics.

Hispanics should also understand that far left ideologues like Newsy went out of their way to falsely smear avdwcent, moderate Hispanic for political purposes.

Supreme Court justices agree on decisions and disagree on reasoning all the damn time! Have you ever seen an instance where a justice issues a separate opinion? If not, then just hush up now because you have no idea what you’re taling about.

In right winger’s fictional alternity, when right wing Judicial activists rewrite the law that’s okay and therefore ? 2+2=9.

That’s both flat out false and duplicitous as well.

The decision you are claiming was 9-0 was 5-4.

And your acceptance of right wing judicial activism that has right wing Judges rewriting the Law is a repudiation from the right wing’s false claim that they were against judicial activism.

If the right wing were consistent they would have denounced the right wing judicial activism engaged in by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and (often) Kennedy.

As it is, the right wing’s failure to denounce today what they had repeatedly denounced in years past reveals the moral relativism that is the heart of the right wing movement:

Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.

In the real world, when you gotta show your work, you MIGHT get partial credit for the right answer, but got there by a flawed process. I know my high school math teacher wasn’t that generous.

I guess “Newsy’s” world doesn’t work like that…

J.

J.