I should put a question mark on that title. I am speaking of course about the highest court in the land, not the best girl band in Motown’s storied history.

It was an interesting weekend. A lot of pool time, and some most triumphant weather. I ran across a lot more of the story of what was happening at the Agency Annex in Benghazi, and why people were so desperate to bury the story. If you are interested, there are some interesting accounts of what Operation ZERO FOOTPRINT was up to.

I asked a colleague who may (or have not) directly participated in a similar evolution in a place and time far, far away, so I am going to suspend judgment on the matter. Depending on the level of credibility, we may be taking more about it.

There was more stuff coming out of the Supremes. The last two decisions of the session dropped this morning- the one about whether Public Sector unions can impose fees on non-members in Harris v Quinn. That and the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and whether the Affordable Care Act’s provisions can force privately-owned companies to provide contraception products under their health care plans that they consider to be abortifacients.

This morning I was mulling over the possibility that US-provided Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) had leaked out of Libya and been used against US helicopters in Afghanistan until ten, when the last two opinions of the session were to be issued by the High Court. I was trying to unscramble fact from fiction when the decisions popped up on most of the media I monitor simultaneously. News-and-Weather on the Eights was breathless. The Times of Gotham City was more dignified, saying they were going to actually read the decisions before reporting on them.

I am not that dignified, as you know, but will refrain from any detailed commentary about them beyond the fact that it looks like Harris and Hobby Lobby both prevailed in their arguments.

In the public sector union case, Pamela Harris is an Illinois healthcare worker who takes care of her son Josh at home. Josh suffers from a rare genetic syndrome. Pamela receives Medicaid funds to do so, and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) maintained that she functions essentially as a state employee, since the union has a contract with the State covering all home care workers.

Pamela works in her own home, and had no interest in joining the union. SEIU maintained that they were entitled to bill part of the Medicaid payment to cover collective bargaining costs. To not be able to do so, they contended, would result in Pamela “Freeloading” on other dues-paying caregivers. SCOTUS has already agreed with that contention in the Abood case in the 1977 docket.

It appears that Abood could be turned on its head.

In the Hobby Lobby case, no one understands the ACA anyway, so I have no idea what it means. Hobby Lobby does provide birth control as part of its health plan, but just doesn’t believe in post-conception birth control.

Whether this is narrow or broad in interpretation is beyond me. Most of the recent decisions by the court have been relatively narrow in scope, though almost uniformly opposed to the expansionist agenda of the Administration.

The usual conservative-progressive 5-4 split did not impact everything. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was unanimous in rejecting the proposition that the President could determine whether or not the Senate considered itself to be in session or not. They didn’t get around to determining whether the decisions made by the illegally-appointed Commissions since their appointments will stand or not.

I would think not, wouldn’t you?

I guess we will see what it all means as the week unfolds- or unravels, as the case may be.

Copyright 2014 Vic Socotra

www.vicsocotra.com

Twitter: @jayare303