For some time now Mad Dog has been working on a formula to predict the outcomes of Supreme Court decisions, which, if implemented might save the government considerable time and money and might save the public needless anxiety and speculation.
This effort is a work in progress and began when Mad Dog realized that he could predict with 95% accuracy the outcome of any case before the court containing any significant social/cultural implications, based on a three sentence summary of that case and the issues involved. Aware he possessed no particular powers of clairvoyance, Mad Dog realized there must be some law of nature, or law of political science or psychology operating.
Here's what we've got so far: Mad Dog has tentatively called his formula the Decision Opinion Predictor Estimator or D.O.P.E., for short.
If D = the Decision
and if P= the number of powerless or poor people affected
and if $= the number of rich or powerful or people in authority affected
and if Y= the number of Democrats on the bench (we already used "D" for Decision)
and if R= the number of Republicans on the court
and if F= the fudge factor, other wise known as Anthony Kennedy
D= P x Y
_____ + F x 1/9
$ x R X 50
And that corresponds, roughly to the chance the case will be called for the poor and powerless.
This works with a 95% accuracy rate, but not 100%, because every once in a while someone like Justice Roberts will inexplicably vote for Obamacare or Justice Kennedy will break out in a warm glow of humanity, like some people get flushed when they watch "It's a Wonderful Life," and he'll vote for gay marriage.
But in most cases, it's a lock. In DC v Heller, the court voted for the gun manufacturers and the NRA, and this included a vote from Justice Scalia, who always insisted he voted because he was influenced only by what was written in the text of the Constitution, but that phrase, "A well organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state" which is the first half of the Second Amendment apparently escaped his notice, and all he saw was the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is possible he had what is called a "visual field defect" and could not see that first part, but more likely, the formula simply predicts.
Then there was the Flowers v Freeholders, case in which a man was arrested for riding while Black in a car and strip searched multiple times in various jails but that was not unreasonable search and seizure because he was, well, Black and poor, so two strikes you're out. The Court held the jailers needed to be protected from men like him-- or from women who might be walking around with knives or explosives tucked away in their vaginas just in case they wound up in jail where those things could be used against their jailers.
But, best of all is Morse v Fredericks, in which a high school student was marched out of his high school so he could join his class cheering a parade for the Olympic Torch, ( a shameless publicity stunt organized for that billion dollar scam called the "Olympic Movement") and he responded by unfurling a banner saying, "Bong Hits for Jesus," which evoked the ire of the school principal, who ripped down his banner and suspended him. The Court held students have no right to freedom of speech, despite the originalist text of the First Amendment, which, again, Justice Scalia reasoned did not apply to students because, well, they are powerless. Of course, Justice Scalia might have argued that though the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech," nowhere in that text did it say, "The Supreme Court shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." And that is just exactly what the Supreme Court did in the Bong Hits for Jesus case.