Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

The Second Stone

(2,900 posts)
10. The OP context should have had "they're"
Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:32 PM
Jun 2012

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'd lay a $10,000 bet magical thyme Jun 2012 #1
I'll take that bet! (Hopefully she said "their".) 11 Bravo Jun 2012 #3
She probably said "they're" in the subject and "their" in the text Orangepeel Jun 2012 #4
The justice was probably speaking malthaussen Jun 2012 #7
The OP context should have had "they're" The Second Stone Jun 2012 #10
sorry, but there isn't any 'their' there, nor is there a 'there' there. magical thyme Jun 2012 #13
As an ESOL tutor, may I suggest that people simply break down CTyankee Jun 2012 #14
Did you read the entire post? There are TWO "theirs" there (or should be). 11 Bravo Jun 2012 #15
I read the title and my brain went... magical thyme Jun 2012 #16
Hell, I missed the one in the thread title! I say we both keep our badges and books! 11 Bravo Jun 2012 #17
Deal! magical thyme Jun 2012 #20
The broccoli argument works both ways quaker bill Jun 2012 #19
When Ginsberg mentioned "broccoli" she was probably refering to a comment Scalia made. former9thward Jun 2012 #21
Who knows what SHE is making reference to? I'm guessing they strike down the mandate... Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #22
I wouldn't call them idiots. At leat not most of them. I am not convinced about Alito or Thomas. morningfog Jun 2012 #2
That's why it's called guessing. GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #5
She is one of the brighter minds on the court. Zax2me Jun 2012 #6
Would you mind telling us where you "heard they already made their decision ..."? 1-Old-Man Jun 2012 #8
Grammar Nazi here: your OP title should read 'what they're talking about' (contraction coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #9
You heard they already made their decision? onenote Jun 2012 #11
As you point out, the initial vote is taken the same week of oral argument. BzaDem Jun 2012 #12
In a complex case like this, things can and do change onenote Jun 2012 #23
Well, I suppose that is in response to Nancy Pelosi who guessed this last week that... WI_DEM Jun 2012 #18
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Justice Ginsburg: Those w...»Reply #10