Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
The grant in the ACA case is just further proof of the essentially political nature of the court. Remember when Roberts characterized his job as just calling the balls and strikes? He forgot to mention that he also intended to modify the strike zone to his liking. The decision to take this case wasn't stupid; it was malicious.
Yes, as a baseball fan, the reference didn't impress much -- umpires have very flexible strike zones. The political nature of the Court is a matter of degree, of course, and this is malicious. As is the work of Prof. Adler (of Volokh Conspiracy), who is using his limited time and efforts on this piece of crap. It isn't some sort of criminal case. Anyway, with no circuit split, RBG's comment on why they didn't take SSM yet comes off as even more phony. She knows that isn't the only reason they take cases even under Rule 10.
Thanks for your .02!