Justice Ginsburg: Those who are guessing what the court will do don't know what there talking about

[bigdarryl]

And those who do aren't saying.It's AMAZING!!! how these idiots in black robes can play with peoples lives as if it's some kind of game.Going over briefs MY ASS I heard they already made there decision about a week after there court hearings. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/ruth-bader-ginsburg-pokes_n_1602424.html

[magical thyme]

1. I'd lay a $10,000 bet

that Justice Ginsburg said "they're" not "there.

Signed,
the grammar police


Seriously, somebody else on an earlier thread about this suggested that they have struck down the mandate based on the Ginsburg quote. Why else would they need to consider whether that meant striking down the entire act or chopping it up like "broccoli."

[11 Bravo]

3. I'll take that bet! (Hopefully she said "their".)

P.S. You are fired from the grammar cops. Turn in your badge and your copy of "Elements of Style".

[Orangepeel]

4. She probably said "they're" in the subject and "their" in the text

I think you should each give me $5000.

[malthaussen]

7. The justice was probably speaking

... so we don't know what spelling she was visualizing. Please re-direct all fees to the campaign to overturn Citizens United.

-- Mal

[The Second Stone]

10. The OP context should have had "they're"

as a contraction of they are. The possessive is "their" and the preposition is "there". So there.

They take a preliminary vote shortly after the oral argument, and then assign the opinions to be written at that meeting. The Chief Justice assigns the opinion to the side he is on, and the longest tenured justice on the other side assigns it for that side. They can and do change their votes.

Their voting is rather predictable. Traditional justices (pre-Scalia) would be highly predictable to follow opinions that they had earlier written, signed on or cited. The Scalia crowd votes like a Republican legislator and reasons as if they were consistently following their previous decisions, with gaps in logic to cover the differences.

I predict that they uphold it, and question the individual mandate, but don't overturn it because nobody who was litigating had the "standing" to argue on behalf of an individual. So they will leave it intact, with the very strong suggestion that a person could not in fact be required to buy the insurance, but that they wouldn't strike down the law of one individual did complain.

[magical thyme]

13. sorry, but there isn't any 'their' there, nor is there a 'there' there.

There is, however, a 'they're' there.

The title includes a contraction of "they are" as in "...don't know what they are talking about."

I'm keeping my badge and my "Elements of Style."

As for you, well...

[CTyankee]

14. As an ESOL tutor, may I suggest that people simply break down

a sentence where usage of "there," "their" and "they are" is in question. I ask my students to think of what is being said, what the meaning could be and walk them through different sentence "meanings." I do this with my Advanced students and it helps them understand why the correct spelling makes sense and the other two options don't.

I find this kind of instruction to be helpful and I'm glad to see you did that in this post. That way we can be seen as "grammar helpers" rather than "grammar police."

[11 Bravo]

15. Did you read the entire post? There are TWO "theirs" there (or should be).

Sorry, I'm still going to need your badge and book.

right back at you.

[magical thyme]

16. I read the title and my brain went...

and and

and I couldn't read anything much after that.

On the other hand, the title very clearly demands a "they're" there. Therefore, I REFUSE to turn over my badge OR my book! SO THERE!!!!!

[11 Bravo]

17. Hell, I missed the one in the thread title! I say we both keep our badges and books!

[magical thyme]

20. Deal!

[quaker bill]

19. The broccoli argument works both ways

If the vast bulk of the law is clearly constitutional then the power to do what is "reasonably necessary" to implement it is also potentially constitutional. Striking down the entire law is judicial activism, but they may do it anyway.

[former9thward]

21. When Ginsberg mentioned "broccoli" she was probably refering to a comment Scalia made.

During oral argument Scalia said the mandate would mean the government could order people to eat broccoli if the government found health reasons to do so. Ginsberg and Scalia are close personal friends so that is probably why she made that comment.

[Honeycombe8]

22. Who knows what SHE is making reference to? I'm guessing they strike down the mandate...

but not the whole act. I don't think the striking down the whole act is even up for consideration,and besides that, if they strike down the mandate, the act will "shrivel on the vine," as they say. It's a major and necessary component.

[morningfog]

2. I wouldn't call them idiots. At leat not most of them. I am not convinced about Alito or Thomas.

[GeorgeGist]

5. That's why it's called guessing.

[Zax2me]

6. She is one of the brighter minds on the court.

I'm prone to take her lead whenever she speaks.

[1-Old-Man]

8. Would you mind telling us where you "heard they already made their decision ..."?

Sounds to me like you've been listening to one of the ones who doesn't know what they are talking about.

[coalition_unwilling]

9. Grammar Nazi here: your OP title should read 'what they're talking about' (contraction

of 'they' + 'are').

[onenote]

11. You heard they already made their decision?

And pray tell, who did you hear that from?

You might make an effort to learn how the court works -- the process by which initial votes are taken on a case after oral argument, opinion writing duties are assigned, draft opinions are circulated, edited and positions evolve over time.

Or you can just call the Justices idiots and in so doing demonstrate who really deserves that label.

[BzaDem]

12. As you point out, the initial vote is taken the same week of oral argument.

And the bottom line vote (affirm or reverse) rarely changes after that. Out of all cases heard per term, it usually happens at most once. In this case, which the justices have had years to think about, it is unlikely that the vote changed.

[onenote]

23. In a complex case like this, things can and do change

A vote to affirm or reverse the lower court is a blunt instrument. Once the opinion is written and the various issues are parsed, you begin to get shifts within the structure of the decision. This is such a case -- one in which it is likely that there will be concurrences that join in some segments of the opinion and not in other. Those sort of line drawing aspects of the decision are generally not known after the "bottom line" vote.

It is that process that Justice Ginsburg undoubtedly was referring to. No one knows what the initial vote was -- to affirm, to reverse, to affirm in part and reverse in part? And the details of the positions and final outcome on various aspects of a complex case like this probably have evolved through the opinion writing process.

[WI_DEM]

18. Well, I suppose that is in response to Nancy Pelosi who guessed this last week that...

the court would uphold the law 6-3.