The New York Mets may be off to a surprising 7-4 start to the 2012 season, giving their fans some hope, but that hope just got smashed in the biggest way ever as Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has ruled that the Mets stink and will not win the World Series. Yes, you read that right. The Supreme Court of the United States of America is biased against the Mets. Ouch.
Here is exactly what Justice Kagan had to say about the Mets in a recent ruling summary about some boring thing relating to pharmaceutical manufacturers:
Truth be told, the answer to the general question “What does ‘not an’ mean?” is “It depends”: The meaning of the phrase turns on its context. See Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 5) (“Ultimately, context determines meaning”). “Not an” sometimes means “not any,” in the way Novo claims. If your spouse tells you he is late because he “did not take a cab,” you will infer that he took no cab at all (but took the bus instead). If your child admits that she “did not read a book all summer,” you will surmise that she did not read any book (but went to the movies a lot). And if a sports-fan friend bemoans that “the New York Mets do not have a chance of winning the World Series,” you will gather that the team has no chance whatsoever (because they have no hitting).
Believe it or not, Justice Kagan is a self-professed big Mets fan. If ever there was a sure sign of how tortured Mets fans are, this is it. Just imagine how much of a double whammy it is going to be when the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare in a few weeks and the Mets have a legally crappy team and no health insurance. How ever will they afford the medical bills they rack up when they break their hand by punching the wall repeatedly after the Mets collapse in June.
(h/t Baseball Think Factory)
