Little sister, don't you...

I'm sure you've all heard about how the Little Sisters of the Poor won their case against OCare's contraception mandate.

For details, they're available elsewhere, I'm sure.

 Only 2 dissenters (or is it dissentresses (or dissentrixes)?), Notorious and the Wise Latina.

So the Short Shortstop who, they said, was going to charm the Conservatives into coming over to the dark side and Breyer joined the other 5, including Roberts.

My question is this. Roberts?

He's supposed to be in Barry's hip pocket. Or nearby. How could this have happened?

Roberts is supposed to be Catholic, so did he get a warning from the Big Bad Boss With The Big Hot Sauce? After all, he tripped and cracked his head

Maybe it was Trump. Maybe Trump has something more on him than the Choom Gang. Maybe Trump leaned on him. He does have connections, the Lefties keep telling us.

Maybe it was a combination. Maybe The Donald and the Sucreme Bean, as my sister called Him when she was little, are on better terms than we think.

Maybe, maybe, They Are One. The God Emperor of the Cherry Blossom Throne.

It would explain a few things.

Updated.

We need to go back to the old way of doing things.

Long term readers of this blog know that I have been a fierce detractor of the Anti-Pope who is fraudulently sitting in the seat of Saint Peter. In post after post I have outlined how he has brought shame and dishonor to the Holy Mother Church. Now even the dim witted can see how egregious his behavior has become and why he must be deposed.

First we have the matter of the homosexual cabal that has prostituted the priesthood and brought shame and degradation to the Church. The current revelations about the Bishop of Philadelphia and the sex abuse scandals are being swept under the rug. The Pope knew about it. And he promoted this pervert. He allowed him to promote and elevate his homosexual cronies. After all "Who is he to judge." He knew. He didn't care. He is still covering it up. He tells us to be "silent." He says that people who uncover the sex abuse are "doing Satan's work." It is just unbelievable.

As bad as this is what he is doing in China is even worse. He is on the verge of a deal with the Chinese government to let the Communist name the bishops in China. Yes that's right. The same problem the Church had with Henry the Eight. Here the Pope is surrendering. He is throwing the true Catholic bishops who served under threat of death to the wolves. I can not credit how evil this is. It is just unbelievable to me.

Wait now the deal is complete. The Pope has agreed to accept seven bishops appointed by the Chinese communists. He is agreeing to allow the communists to control the Church in China. In the meantime the true priests and bishops who led the life of true Catholics under penalty of martyrdom are ignored and pushed aside. Or even defrocked as has been threatened.

Supreme Court block transgender from using boys' restroom

Los Angeles Times:  The Supreme Court intervened for the first time Wednesday in the controversy over transgender rights and blocked a lower court ruling that would have allowed a transgender boy to use the high school restroom that fits his “gender identity.”

In an unusual 5-3 order, the justices granted an emergency appeal from a Virginia school board, which said it is fighting to “protect the basic expectations of bodily privacy of Gloucester County students.”

The school board was seeking to be exempted from the Obama administration’s position that schools nationwide are required to allow transgender students to use the bathroom they prefer.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer signaled he did not support the school board’s emergency appeal, but said he joined the court’s four conservatives as a “courtesy” to put the issue on hold until the justices can review the matter when they return in the fall.

“In light of the facts that four justices have voted to grant the application referred to the court by the chief justice, that we are currently on recess and that granting the stay will preserve the status quo,” he wrote, “I vote to grant the application as a courtesy.”

"Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law"

NBC News:  The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down one of the nation's toughest restrictions on abortion, a Texas law that women's groups said would have forced more than three-quarters of the state's clinics to shut down.

The decision was 5-3.

Passed in 2013, the law said clinics providing abortion services must meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers. And it required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Since the law was passed, the number of clinics providing abortion services in Texas dropped to 19 from 42. Opponents said that number would fall to ten if the Supreme Court upheld the law.

Supreme Court decision allows for more Kermit Gosnell's to exist.

— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) June 27, 2016

This is news: Justice Thomas asks questions in court, 1st time in 10 years

Thomas' questions came Monday in case in which the court is considering placing new limits on the reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

Thomas asked the Justice Department lawyer defending the government's prosecution whether the violation of any other law suspends a person's constitutional rights.

Schumer: Don't use my 2007 speech to justify blocking Obama nominee

Schumer told the American Constitution Society in 2007 that Democrats "should reverse the presumption of confirmation," because the court was "dangerously out of balance." At the time, George W. Bush was president.

But Schumer argues now that Democrats would have taken up a Bush nomination.

"Every single senator has a right to vote no on any given nominee," Schumer wrote. "I've opposed some nominees who are out of the mainstream, my friends on the other side of the aisle have opposed some nominees they believe are out of the mainstream, and this pattern may well continue. But the wisdom of the Founding Fathers dictates that we should go through a full vetting and confirmation process so that we and the nation can determine whether these candidates are out of the mainstream even in this ideological era."

"Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead"

My San Antonio: U.S. District Judge Fred Biery said he was among those notified about Scalia's death.

"I was told it was this morning," Biery said of Scalia's death. "It happened on a ranch out near Marfa. As far as the details, I think it's pretty vague right now as to how," he said. "My reaction is it's really unfortunate with any death. And now, politically, in the presidential cycle we're in my educated guess is nothing will happen before the next president is elected." 

The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation.
Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.

A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

"Supreme Court appears skeptical of union fees"

Los Angeles Times: The Supreme Court sounded ready Monday to deal a severe blow to public employee unions by striking down laws that require all workers to help pay for collective bargaining.

In its tone and questioning, the argument resembled more of a congressional hearing at which Republicans took one position, Democrats argued the opposite, and there appeared little chance to sway either side....

The court’s conservative majority, which has long voiced skepticism about mandatory union fees, questioned whether such a distinction was relevant.

“Everything that is collectively bargaining is within the political sphere,” Justice Antonin Scalia said.

So the key question, according to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., is “whether or not individuals can be compelled to support political views that they disagree with.”

Meanwhile, the four Democratic appointees, playing defense, said the court should not upset the 1977 ruling.

California and 22 other mostly “blue” states have union-friendly laws requiring fair-share fees. If the court were to declare them unconstitutional, it would upset “tens of thousands” of contracts, said Justice Elena Kagan, and affect as many 10 million public employees.

Public-sector unions will take a financial hit if the court strikes down the fair-share fees, also known as agency fees. Some public employees might opt to stop paying dues entirely, confident that they will nevertheless receive the benefits of the union’s collective bargaining.

But it is unclear how badly unions will be hurt. The chief justice said he doubted unions were “going to collapse.”

"Is Polygamy Next?"

"NOW that the dust is settling from the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a right to same-sex marriage, there are new questions. In particular, could the decision presage a constitutional right to plural marriage? If there is no magic power in opposite sexes when it comes to marriage, is there any magic power in the number two?"

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s dissent in Obergefell raised this very question, intending to show how radical the majority’s decision could become. But the issue was hard to discuss candidly while same-sex marriage was still pending, because both sides knew that association with plural marriage, a more unpopular cause, could have stymied progress for gay rights. (Opponents of same-sex marriage had reasons to emphasize the association, while supporters had reasons to play it down.) With same-sex marriage on the books, we can now ask whether polyamorous relationships should be next...

[M]any supporters of the same-sex marriage decision reject the possibility of plural marriage with surprising confidence. Writing in Slate after the decision in Obergefell, Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a right to plural marriage because it would lead to gender imbalances if “the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives.” Similarly, the same-sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch has argued that polygamy allows “high-status men to hoard wives” and destabilizes society.

Gender equality is of course a serious concern. But the arguments above rest on the assumption that plural marriage will involve only one man and multiple women. That assumption is weak. Plural relationships could well be (and in some circles today are) between multiple people of both sexes, not all of whom are strictly heterosexual. (read more)

The McCain Mutiny

John Roberts' bittersweet dissent in Lem's previous post reminded me of this scene in "The Caine Mutiny":

Link in case the video doesn't load

"Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies"

Drudge: Supremes love Obamacare

The Supreme Court has upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans.

The justices said in a 6-3 ruling Thursday that the subsidies that 8.7 million people currently receive to make insurance affordable do not depend on where they live, under the 2010 health care law.

Chief Justice John Roberts again voted with his liberal colleagues in support of the law. Roberts also was the key vote to uphold the law in 2012.

Justice Anthony Kennedy also voted with his more liberal colleagues.

(added) Justice Scalia wrote...

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. “[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover”. Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U.S. 364, 370 (1925) Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. (Bold edit mine)

"High court upholds Texas ban on Confederate flag plates"

"In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court determined the license plate design falls under government speech. Government is not bound by the First Amendment’s free speech clause when it comes to limiting the content of its own speech, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas joined liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the majority.... The Supreme Court ruling said the First Amendment does not limit the content of what governments can say when promoting programs, policies and positions.
“Were the free speech clause interpreted otherwise, government would not work,” Breyer wrote."

Obama G-7 Germany

"States should never have taken up healthcare law" appears to be the big takeaway from the speech delivered in Germany.

I heard portions of this speech. It ran on several channels at once, an important speech too covering several important issues and delivered without teleprompter. Perhaps you should watch it in full listen carefully and be fully informed then come back and tell me your opinions of what he said and in that manner I can become informed too without listening.

That bit up there came at the end during q&a. In my opinion that was not the most significant part of his answer to that question, even though his answer came to me in pieces. Struggling with my own resistance to imperious stretched/clipped speech pattern I clicked off at "the proof that Obamacare is working is the absence of all those terrible catastrophes that were supposed to happen." While all I've read about is insurance companies projecting significant and stultifying rate increases discouraging healthy signups further. Young healthy people uninvolved in politics would rather pay penalty. (But then I only bother with conservative political sites, the others are insane) And who will healthy people blame for being made to pay penalty for not buying insurance that Obama and party required? I'm only guessing, and my guess is based on knowing they're not as stupid as commonly described. Not recognizing that his home state Hawaii cannot afford its own service and wasted half a billion in federal taxpayer's money trying seemed to me more significant than him saying perhaps the Supreme Court should reject the challenge to his healthcare law, and the japes on Twitter that follow in torrent.

More significant than him stating flatly that he does not have a plan for defeating ISIS. The body language speaks to me louder and much more clearly than his singsong stretched/clipped pattern. That awkward moment of Obama stuck sitting on a bench next to Iraqi Prime Minister says everything. He couldn't boyishly twist his entire body toward and around the female Europeron and away from the Prime Minister who came up to sit right there next to him any more than he does. Then standing up makes sure to complete a closed circle turning from and shutting out the little person dressed in brown. Imagine yourself doing that. And why.

The quarter-turn. It is a technique that was actually taught to me and with derisive mocking laughter and a bit high on cocktails about how to cut off conversation in a crowd by simply turning away from it distracted by more interesting conversation and smiling while you do it. And the guy's left, "I think I'll just get another drink" But he can't because he's Muslim.

Obama Court Should Not Have Accepted the Obamacare Challenge Huffington Post.
Europe Will Continue Sanctions Against Russia CNN.
Obama, Reviewing Strategies for Training Iraqi Troops WSJ.
Obama, No Complete Strategy yet on Training Iraqi Troops, CNN

"Justice Kagan uses Dr. Seuss in case argument"

"In a 5-4 decision announced Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was meant to apply only to records or information documents."

But in her dissent, Justice Kagan argued that fish should be included in the “tangible object” category of evidence the law describes.

“A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form,” she wrote. “See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960).”

During oral arguments in November, things sometimes took a turn for the absurd, as justices debated the legal nature of fish and whether a fish could count as a record if information was carved into its scales.

Link to Sopranos fish scene on YouTube.

"Supreme Court blocks Wisconsin's voter ID law"

"The Supreme Court on Thursday night blocked Wisconsin from implementing its new voter identification law on the eve of next month's elections."

"In a related action, a district court judge in Texas ruled that state's voter ID law is racially discriminatory and violates the Voting Rights Act. The state attorney general's office said it would appeal."

via Instapundit who says the "margin of fraud" just expanded.

The Weekly Standard: The Obama Doctrine

"In the past week alone, President Obama has twice been rebuked by the Supreme Court for having run afoul of the Constitution (a 9-0 decision) or federal law (5-4).  Unchastened, he brazenly picked the very day that the second decision was announced to reassert the Obama Doctrine — namely, that if Congress refuses to pass a political loser that Obama is championing, Obama will take the law into his own hands." (read more)

Supreme Court: Unions Can’t Charge Fees to Certain Non-Members

"In a case that threatened the future of public employee unions, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled so-called agency fees charged to certain non-union members violate those members' First Amendment rights."

The high court stopped short of barring all public employee unions from charging agency fees to non-members. The employees in the case before the court-Illinois homecare workers-were not “full-fledged” public employees, the court said. 

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented. (read more)

The Supremes also ruled in favor of Hooby Looby.

Supreme Court: Opening Prayers at Council Meetings Constitutional

"The Supreme Court has upheld the right of local officials to open town council meetings with prayer, ruling that this does not violate the Constitution even if the prayers routinely stress Christianity."

"The court said in a 5-4 decision Monday that the content of the prayers is not critical as long as officials make a good-faith effort at inclusion." (read more)

Dissenting, Justice Kagan wrote...

"I have no doubt that every member of this Court believes as firmly as I that our institutions of gov­ernment belong equally to all, regardless of faith. Rather, the error reflects two kinds of blindness," Kagan wrote. "First, the majority misapprehends the facts of this case, as distinct from those characterizing traditional legislative prayer. And second, the majority misjudges the essential meaning of the religious worship in Greece's town hall, along with its capacity to exclude and divide."

***

Wikipedia: "The English common name for the order is the mantises, or rarely (using a Latinized plural of Greek mantis), the mantes. The name mantid refers only to members of the family Mantidae. The other common name, often applied to any species in the order, is "praying mantis", because of the typical "prayer-like" posture with folded fore-limbs, although the folk etymology "preying mantis" is sometimes used in reference to their predatory habits."

“a freedom-destroying cocktail”

"The Supreme Court says an anonymous tip can be sufficient to justify a decision by police to pull a car over on suspicion of reckless or drunken driving."

The justices voted 5-4 Tuesday to uphold a traffic stop in northern California in which officers subsequently found marijuana in the vehicle. The officers themselves did not see any evidence of reckless driving.

Justice Clarence Thomas said the tip phoned in to 911 that a Ford pickup truck had run the caller off the road was sufficiently reliable to allow for the traffic stop without violating the driver’s constitutional rights.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent in which he called Thomas’ opinion “a freedom-destroying cocktail.”

I suppose "tipping" could be abused, like everything else.

"Legislative Prayer Gets Supreme Court Review"

"The Supreme Court, which asks for God's protection before every public session, will settle a dispute over prayer in the halls of government."

The case being argued at the court Wednesday involves prayers said at the start of town council meetings in Greece, N.Y., a Rochester suburb. It is the court's first legislative prayer case since 1983, when the justices said that an opening prayer is part of the nation's fabric and not a violation of the First Amendment.

AP Mark Sherman (Althouse will very likely have more on this)