Despite the fact that they're off to a surprising 7-4 start this season, the New York Mets have been the butt of plenty of jokes over the course of the last year or so. Everyone from the sports blogs to Chris Rock has ripped them for being so, well, sucky. But, we honestly didn't see this coming.
Recently, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was making a ruling on a case involving pharmaceutical manufacturers and was trying to break down the meaning of the phrase "not an." And, this is the explanation she gave:
"Truth be told, the answer to the general question "What does 'not an' means?" is "It depends": The meaning of the phrase turns on its context. See Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S…"Not an" sometimes means "not anyway"…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)."
We're not exactly sure if Justice Kagan—who is a Mets fan, by the way—made her point or not. But, she did throw her team under the bus in the process. That's cold, Justice!
[via The Outside Corner]
Follow @Complex_Sports for more news and commentary.