Mistaken Identity: People Angry at Supreme Court Decision Vent at Blog


Locutus
#1
heh


The Supreme Court issued a contentious 5-4 decision (external - login to view) at the end of its term Monday, decreeing that Hobby Lobby — and by extension any other "closely held" family company — did not have to pay for employee contraception under the Affordable Care Act.

Furious at the decision, many Twitter users took to the service to express their rage. The Supreme Court has no Twitter account — but try telling that to the activists who tweeted at SCOTUSblog (external - login to view), an independent and highly respected news site that covers the court, as if it were the court itself.



SCOTUSblog decided to have a little fun with the mistake, responding to and reposting more than a dozen outraged tweets and counting:
We thought blogging seemed very 21st century. MT @Iiuslep (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) want to obliterate any progressive acheivement of 20th century.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Failure of democracy. MT @Rockinwil (external - login to view): Time to do away with the @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) since they are no longer representing citizens of the US.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
But you complete us. MT @stevenwishnoff (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) You disgust me.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
When you start reading our description. MT @ProgressivesWin (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) When will you start honoring the constitution. #5OldBigots (external - login to view)
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
You are not the 1st & won’t be the last @JayRooTheDee (external - login to view): everyone should tweet @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) and tell them what we think of their misogyny.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Thank God RT @aclery (external - login to view): @Pontifex (external - login to view) please help United States #women (external - login to view) & tell @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) that denying health care because of sex is dehumanizing.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Or eating the cheap Kung Pao Chicken MT @NYCPainter1 (external - login to view): Of all the bad decisions @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) made the last few years, #HobbyLobby (external - login to view) is the worst
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Least we could do. MT @HeathNOLA (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) oh they can still get coverage? How generous of you.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Lost our copy, apologies. MT @opinali (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) today you have f@cked up real hard. Go read the f@cking First Amendment again, OK?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Um, call your ISP? RT @controlmemore (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) kicked down my front door and stole my freedom. What do I do now?????
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Come at us, bro MT @mazurslovedogs (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) manages to screw up or endanger everyone’s life. Maybe someone needs to discuss impeachment!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Even these hilarious responses didn't dissuade several Twitter users from believing the account speaks for the Supreme Court. (One later claimed she did so because @SCOTUSblog has a "verified" account.)
The passive aggressive way @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.
— Oliver Christensen (@WollyWollenberg) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Have y'all seen what @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) is tweeting? #MyGovernmentIsBeingPassiveAggressive (external - login to view) #Awkward (external - login to view)
— Lena FGM (@sayyeslena) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
A PSA for all those offended by the decision: you can reach the Supreme Court using old-fashioned technology. Call the court offices at 202-479-3000, or send a letter to the following address:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Or if you want to vent on Twitter, how about the company that brought the case in the first place?
Today #SCOTUS (external - login to view) has granted a landmark victory for #religiousfreedom (external - login to view), ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. More info: Home | The Hobby Lobby Case (external - login to view)
— Official Hobby Lobby (@HobbyLobbyStore) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)


Mistaken Identity: People Angry at Supreme Court Decision Vent at Blog (external - login to view)
 
pgs
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

heh


The Supreme Court issued a contentious 5-4 decision (external - login to view) at the end of its term Monday, decreeing that Hobby Lobby — and by extension any other "closely held" family company — did not have to pay for employee contraception under the Affordable Care Act.

Furious at the decision, many Twitter users took to the service to express their rage. The Supreme Court has no Twitter account — but try telling that to the activists who tweeted at SCOTUSblog (external - login to view), an independent and highly respected news site that covers the court, as if it were the court itself.



SCOTUSblog decided to have a little fun with the mistake, responding to and reposting more than a dozen outraged tweets and counting:

We thought blogging seemed very 21st century. MT @Iiuslep (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) want to obliterate any progressive acheivement of 20th century.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Failure of democracy. MT @Rockinwil (external - login to view): Time to do away with the @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) since they are no longer representing citizens of the US.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
But you complete us. MT @stevenwishnoff (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) You disgust me.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
When you start reading our description. MT @ProgressivesWin (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) When will you start honoring the constitution. #5OldBigots (external - login to view)
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
You are not the 1st & won’t be the last @JayRooTheDee (external - login to view): everyone should tweet @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) and tell them what we think of their misogyny.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Thank God RT @aclery (external - login to view): @Pontifex (external - login to view) please help United States #women (external - login to view) & tell @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) that denying health care because of sex is dehumanizing.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Or eating the cheap Kung Pao Chicken MT @NYCPainter1 (external - login to view): Of all the bad decisions @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) made the last few years, #HobbyLobby (external - login to view) is the worst
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Least we could do. MT @HeathNOLA (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) oh they can still get coverage? How generous of you.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Lost our copy, apologies. MT @opinali (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) today you have f@cked up real hard. Go read the f@cking First Amendment again, OK?
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Um, call your ISP? RT @controlmemore (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) kicked down my front door and stole my freedom. What do I do now?????
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Come at us, bro MT @mazurslovedogs (external - login to view): @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) manages to screw up or endanger everyone’s life. Maybe someone needs to discuss impeachment!
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Even these hilarious responses didn't dissuade several Twitter users from believing the account speaks for the Supreme Court. (One later claimed she did so because @SCOTUSblog has a "verified" account.)
The passive aggressive way @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.
— Oliver Christensen (@WollyWollenberg) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
Have y'all seen what @SCOTUSblog (external - login to view) is tweeting? #MyGovernmentIsBeingPassiveAggressive (external - login to view) #Awkward (external - login to view)
— Lena FGM (@sayyeslena) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)
A PSA for all those offended by the decision: you can reach the Supreme Court using old-fashioned technology. Call the court offices at 202-479-3000, or send a letter to the following address:

Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Or if you want to vent on Twitter, how about the company that brought the case in the first place?
Today #SCOTUS (external - login to view) has granted a landmark victory for #religiousfreedom (external - login to view), ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby. More info: Home | The Hobby Lobby Case (external - login to view)
— Official Hobby Lobby (@HobbyLobbyStore) June 30, 2014 (external - login to view)


Mistaken Identity: People Angry at Supreme Court Decision Vent at Blog (external - login to view)

Definition of Low Information Voter .
 
Kreskin
#3
I don't see any of the decision as being a big deal.
 
no new posts