The Owl Being Dishonest, By Omission.

 Not spreading lies but being dishonest by omission.  To explain.  She was blogging about an article about the climate change case before SCOTUS.  

Her remarks about a quote in the article that comes from a full on CHUD. Right Wing lunatic.  Teaches at Scalia Law School.  Went to Dartmouth.  And the quote isn't even a reply to a reporter's question, but from some webinar he gave sometime ago.  I'll do a copy paste of the text, but the image is how it looks right now.  Things on the web are often fluid:

"ADDED: The NYT quotes lawprof Todd J. Zywicki: "What this case is about is a bunch of one-percenter hippies in Boulder County who want to tell the rest of us how we have to live."   

At least she gave her viewers a guest link.  Here is the fuller context:

"The companies and their supporters argue that lawsuits like Boulder’s are an attempt to regulate the fossil fuel industry via litigation instead of through laws passed by Congress. As Todd J. Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, put it in a recent webinar: “What this case is about is a bunch of one-percenter hippies in Boulder County who want to tell the rest of us how we have to live.”

Context matters.  I am not going to accuse the Owl of deliberately out of bias hiding the context, and blatantly biased POV of the law prof.  But hey.  Properly lumping in professor CHUD with the other anti environment forces of evil, is different than letting it look like it's some random, disinterested legal expert.

While I am giving notes.  The NYT didn't do a thorough enough job identifying the CHUD.  He's not exactly a well known name even among members of the bar.  Even if it was a legal luminary like Tribe.  You still should identify him beyond where he works.  He does have a rep.  Don't assume all readers know it.

So yeah.  It's not personal for me.  I see bullshit.  I call bullshit.

The Fix is in? Maybe?

 More re the troubling SCOTUS hearing, on the Colorado ballot matter.

Now I post about this more on my FB wall.  But I must have posted here, more than once, that I believe the Federal courts (more than even the state courts) are so greatly corrupt, that I find them to be that.

SCOTUS is the worst offender.  Because the justices are the ultimate unsupervised players in the system.  I will get to that later, in context.  But first, let me say I predicted weeks ago, that SCOTUS was going to side with bozo on the disqualification case, but against him on immunity.  Some legal analysts  are saying they may have basically decided that already?  And well?  I can see that. There will be a post hearing conference on how they decide today's case.  But they can communicate with out being in the same room.  I am not swearing on the idea of a fix, though.  Seems to me  the immunity case is the weaker argument.  And they don't have to do more than just not grant the hearing.  Oh.  at least one person is suggesting  both actions could happen at  or near the same time.  So we shall see.

I won't go much longer.  But as evidence of corruption, consider the following.  One or more of the SCOTUS judges were too focused on what was only a possible outcome, instead of doing what they should have.  Focusing on the issue before them.

Few things say I am doing the job of being judge/justice wrong, like focusing on the result you don't want.  Focusing on the result you do want, is merely equally wrong.  And there is no judicial authority over them.

Well at least we might get a flaming dissent from Tia Sotomayor.