Read your job description

Sotomayor Vaccine mandate

Breyer Vaccine Madate

Kagan ditto

The problem isn’t so much that the Liberal Justices are woefully misinformed on the pandemic, it’s that they thought their opinions on what might be good policy was relevant to their deliberations.

Their charge is to determine if the mandate conforms to the Constitution and if it is within the scope of OSHA’s delegated powers. Ther opinion on its value has no bearing on a valid ruling.

How did they get out of eight grade civics, much less on to the nation’s highest court?

12 thoughts on “Read your job description

  1. RE: “How did they get out of eight grade civics, much less on to the nation’s highest court?”

    I don’t know, but I’d guess it is because no one understands liberty as a concept anymore.


  2. “Ther [sic] opinion on its value has no bearing on a valid ruling.”

    And yet, we know with near certainty how each justice will rule on any given case. Wonder why that is…

    Speaking of job descriptions, where in the constitution is the SC granted the power of judicial review?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “You might say it was the opinion of the Marshall court…”

        You might also say it was the valid opinion of the Marshall court given the constitutional argument Marshall made and the fact it has withstood the test of time. Reducing judicial review to a mere opinion falsifies the reality of it.


    1. “And yet, we know with near certainty how each justice will rule on any given case. Wonder why that is…”

      Because Justices appointed by the GOP follow the literal word of the Constitution, even when it works against GOP interests while Democrat appoint partisan activists who ignore the Constitution.


      1. You do understand that terms like “upholding the constitution” and “legislating from the bench” are just loaded terms used to describe a decision one either agrees with or disagrees with, right? You understand this is just framing?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No, it is not.

          Under the Constitution, Congress passes the laws, no one else. Congress has been sloppy in passing law, allowing wiggle room for the executive, but substituting their own opinion in direct opposition to properly passed law is outside the powers of the courts.


          1. If the law is properly passed does not mean it is Constitutional. That is the crux of what the Court is dealing with each year.

            Then the issue becomes the interpretation of the Constitution and adherence to precedence. And precedence is a key part of US jurisprudence. And if there are a series of cases over a long period of time that go back to an original ruling, there are changes and opinions written and analyzed. Almost like the game of “telephone”. By the time the last caller tells the tale, it is quite different from the original.

            I think our biggest problem is that the power of the presidency has grown well beyond its original and intended office. And, as we have seen in the last years, the executive branch can, and did, ignore any and all oversight as mandated by the Constitution. Perhaps an unclogged judiciary would have prevented that, but the actions of the executive were often depending upon running out the clock because it would take months if not years to get a ruling. Then it gets appealed to start over again.

            In other words, it may not be that the system itself is bad, but that we have choked the life out of it.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. Opinion is the lifeblood of SCOTUS. A ruling will have a majority opinion and a dissenting one. In some cases several if the case is big enough.

    The Constitution is notoriously vague. Hence thousands of rulings and almost 3 dozen amendments.

    The Rule of Law might seem clear cut, but obviously it is not or we wouldn’t have so many lawyers and volumes of precedence setting litigation.

    Unfortunately, the powers of the 3 branches as seemingly projected and approved in 1787 are so muddled now that it may be time to rethink a new Constitution. Our president can declare war, for example.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s